versus . 

\  •  *  '  .v 


IT,  i  A  I  v  «.*  f  *  fly 

1  u . ;  ui  x  j'j.  x  |  j .  6 

v  -  ’  ••  : *  •  .*?. $  :  *  • 

*  ■  ‘  fft  ■  .Tc...*  * 


CONTAINING 


.  '•  4.a  •  •  •» 

- .  Y 1  »; 

•qy  •  > 


%/•  V  •  Ji-r 


■  *  *'vV  K  0  -  .  *- 
•S> ,  *  *  *  tjr  <  ;. 


The .  Coming  \.Bldve 
The  Sins  of  Legislator's”. . 


AND 


Great  Political  Superstition. 


11 


BY 


HERBERT  SPENCER. 


V  ■ 


■  ■-•••> 

■y>A,.vYiY  A './>>!. 

;  w  .  "  -  <v  -.  '•  y- 


5.13.07 

fctbrarp  of  Che  Cheotygicai  ^emmarp 

PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 

PRESENTED  BY 

President  Patton 

"T"  l""”  /*”?  / 

JL  h  \ 

^  «tt*r  w  |  f 

O  f7  / 

*  O  (  Hr 


Spencer’s  Synthetic  Philosophy. 

(1.)  FIRST  PRINCIPLES . 

I.  The  Unknowable. 

II.  Laws  of  the  Know  able. 

(2.)  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  BIOLOGY.  Yol.  I.  . 

I.  The  Data  of  Biology. 

II.  The  Inductions  of  Biology. 

III.  The  Evolution  of  Life. 

.  $2,00 

(3.)  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  BIOLOGY.  Yol.  II. 

IV.  Morphological  Development. 

V.  Physiological  Development. 

YI.  Laws  of  Multiplication. 

.  $2.00 

(4.)  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  PSYCHOLOGY.  Yol.  I.  . 

I.  The  Data  of  Psychology. 

II.  The  Inductions  of  Psychology. 

III.  General  Synthesis. 

IY.  Special  Synthesis. 

V.  Physical  Synthesis. 

.  $2.00 

(5.)  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  PSYCHOLOGY.  Yol.  II. 

VI.  Special  Analysis. 

VII.  General  Analysis. 

VIII.  Corollaries. 

.  $2.00 

(6.)  PRINCIPLES  OF  SOCIOLOGY.  Yol.  I . 

I.  The  Data  of  Sociology. 

II.  The  Inductions  of  Sociology. 

III.  The  Domestic  Relations. 

.  $2.00 

(7.)  PRINCIPLES  OF  SOCIOLOGY.  Yol.  II.  ... 

IY.  Ceremonial  Institutions. 

Y.  Political  Institutions. 

.  $2.00 

(8.)  PRINCIPLES  OF  SOCIOLOGY.  Yol.  III.  .  . 

♦  *  *  * 

• 

(9.)  PRINCIPLES  OF  MORALITY.  Yol.  I . 

• 

I.  The  Data  of  Ethics . 

*  *  *  * 

(10.)  PRINCIPLES  OF  MORALITY.  Yol.  II. 

*  *  *  * 

D.  APPLETON  &  CO.,  Publishers,  New  York. 

• 

THE  MAH 


VERSUS 

.THE  STATE: 

CONTAINING 


THE  HEW  TORYISM,”  “  THE  COMING  SLAYEEY 
“THE  SINS  OF  LEGISLATORS,” 

AND 

“THE  GREAT  POLITICAL  SUPERSTITION.” 


* 


BY 

V 

HERBERT  SPENCER. 


REPRINTED  FROM  “  THE  POPULAR  SCIENCE  MONTHLY” 

WITH  A  POSTSCRIPT. 


NEW  YORK: 

D.  APPLETON  AND  COMPANY, 

1,  3,  and  5  BOND  STREET. 

1884. 


!* 


' 


I 

" 

l 


■  - 

' 

' 

•  ;  ■  ,  ‘  ■ 

■  , 

' 


» 


* 


'  •  ‘  ■ 


' 

.  .  •  X. 


,  ,rV;  • 


I 


; 

-  V 


•  '  : 

.  ■ 


. 

- 

I 


♦ 


V  , 


■  , 

■  ,  '  ’* 

:  , 


'  ■ 


•i  •  •  •  ' 


- 

I 


»  ' 


' 


ft- 


-  ■ 


( 

H  1  ’ 


< 


'  A  . 


-• 


, 


. 


■ 

..  . 


,  .  1 , 


I  .. 

I 

i  ; 


I 


. 


< 


/ 


< 


.  ' 


.1  -1 


\ 


PREFACE. 


The  Westminster  Review  for  April  1860,  contained  an  article 
entitled  “  Parliamentary  Eeform :  the  Dangers  and  the  Safe¬ 
guards.”  In  that  article  I  ventured  to  predict  some  results  of 
political  changes  then  proposed. 

Deduced  to  its  simplest  expression,  the  thesis  maintained 
was  that,  unless  due  precautions  were  taken,  increase  of  freedom 
in  form  would  be  followed  by  decrease  of  freedom  in  fact. 
Nothing  has  occurred  to  alter  the  belief  I  then  expressed.  The 
drift  of  legislation  since  that  time  has  been  of  the  kind  antici¬ 
pated.  Dictatorial  measures,  rapidly  multiplied,  have  tended 
continually  to  narrow  the  liberties  of  individuals;  and  have 
done  this  in  a  double  way.  Regulations  have  been  made  in 
yearly-growing  numbers,  restraining  the  citizen  in  directions 
where  his  actions  were  previously  unchecked,  and  compelling 
actions  which  previously  he  might  perform  or  not  as  he  liked ; 
and  at  the  same  time  heavier  public  burdens,  chiefly  local,  have 
further  restricted  his  freedom,  by  lessening  that  portion  of 
his  earnings  which  he  can  spend  as  he  pleases,  and  augmenting 
the  portion  taken  from  him  to  be  spent  as  public  agents  please. 

The  causes  of  these  foretold  effects,  then  in  operation,  con¬ 
tinue  in  operation — are,  indeed,  likely  to  be  strengthened ;  and 
finding  that  the  conclusions  drawn  respecting  these  causes  and 
effects  have  proved  true,  I  have  been  prompted  to  set  forth  and 


11 


PREFACE. 


emphasize  kindred  conclusions  respecting  the  future,  and  do 
what  little  may  be  done  towards  awakening  attention  to 
threatened  evils. 

For  this  purpose  were  written  the  four  following  articles, 
originally  published  in  the  Contemporary  Review  for  February, 
April,  May,  June  and  July  of  this  year.  To  meet  certain 
criticisms  and  to  remove  some  of  the  objections  likely  to  be 
raised,  I  have  now  added  a  postscript. 


Bayswater ,  July ,  1884. 


CONTENTS. 


I.  The  Kew  Toryism  . 

II.  The  Coming  Slavery 


III.  The  Sins  of  Legislators 


IV.  The  Great  Political  Superstition 


V.  Postscript 


1 

18 

44 

78 

108 


/ 

*  - 

. 

*  I  »  V  4 

• ,  ,  -  •.  ,  -  :  v  | 

.  '  . 

;  '  .  ■  -  # "  ' ; 

» 


* 


' 

.  ■ . 


i 


* 


■ '  ■  ■  '  - 

■  / 


. 

■  •  ' 

" 

-  ,  .  ■: 

l 


j 


• 

. 

f 

> 

•  / 

*  V  •’  .  .  . 


r 


i 


*, 


'  * 


■  V 

V 


>  - 


y.  y 


* 

\ 

Wt  .•■.'■■■  '  ' 


-■  , 


■ 


•  *' 


:  • 

V 


,  '  '  i 


I 


'  , 


t 


. 


/ 


✓ 

THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


THE  NEW  TORYISM. 


Most  of  those  who  now  pass  as  Liberals,  are  Tories  of  a  new  type. 
This  is  a  paradox  which  I  propose  to  justify.  That  I  may  justify 
it,  I  must  first  point  out  what  the  two  political  parties  originally 
were  ;  and  I  must  then  ask  the  reader  to  bear  with  me  while  I 
remind  him  of  facts  he  is  familiar  with,  that  I  may  impress  on  him 
the  intrinsic  natures  of  Toryism  and  Liberalism  properly  so  called. 

Dating  back  to  an  earlier  period  than  their  names,  the  two 
political  parties  at  first  stood  respectively  for  two  opposed  types 
of  social  organization,  broadly  distinguishable  as  the  militant  and 
the  industrial — types  which  are  characterized,  the  one  by  the 
regime  of  status,  almost  universal  in  ancient  days,  and  the  other 
by  the  regime  of  contract,  which  has  become  general  in  modern 
days,  chiefly  among  the  Western  nations,  and  especially  among 
ourselves  and  the  Americans.  If,  instead  of  using  the  word 
“  co-operation”  in  a  limited  sense,  we  use  it  in  its  widest  sense,  as 
signifying  the  combined  activities  of  citizens  under  whatever 
system  of  regulation ;  then  these  two  are  definable  as  the  system 
of  compulsory  co-operatiou  and  the  system  of  voluntary  co-opera¬ 
tion.  The  typical  structure  of  the  one  we  see  in  an  army  formed 
of  conscripts,  in  which  the  units  in  their  several  grades  have  to 
fulfil  commands  under  pain  of  death,  and  receive  food  and  clothing 
and  pay,  arbitrarily  apportioned ;  while  the  typical  structure  of 
the  other  we  see  in  a  body  of  producers  or  distributors,  who  seve- 


x 


2 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


rally  agree  to  specified  payments  in  return  for  specified  services, 
and  may  at  will,  after  due  notice,  leave  the  organization  if  they 
do  not  like  it. 

During  social  evolution  in  England,  the  distinction  between 
these  two  fundamentally-opposed  forms  of  co-operation,  made  its 
appearance  gradually  ;  but  long  before  the  names  Tory  and  Whig 
came  into  use,  the  parties  were  becoming  traceable,  and  their  con¬ 
nexions  with  militancy  and  industrialism  respectively,  were  vaguely 
shown.  The  truth  is  familiar  that,  here  as  elsewhere,  it  was 
habitually  by  town-populations,  formed  of  workers  and  traders 
accustomed  to  co-operate  under  contract,  that  resistances  w.ere 
made  to  that  coercive  rule  which  characterizes  co-operation  under 
status.  While,  conversely,  co-operation  under  status,  arising  from, 
and  adjusted  to,  chronic  warfare,  was  supported  in  rural  districts, 
originally  peopled  by  military  chiefs  and  their  dependents,  where 
the  primitive  ideas  and  traditions  survived.  Moreover,  this 
contrast  in  political  leanings,  shown  before  Whig  and  Tory  prin¬ 
ciples  became  clearly  distinguished,  continued  to  be  shown  after¬ 
wards.  At  the  period  of  the  Revolution,  “  while  the  villages  and 
smaller  towns  were  monopolized  by  Tories,  the  larger  cities,  the 
manufacturing  districts,  and  the  ports  of  commerce,  formed  the 
strongholds  of  the  Whigs.”  And  that,  spite  of  exceptions,  the  like 
general  relation  still  exists,  needs  no  proving. 

Such  were  the  natures  of  the  two  parties  as  indicated  by  their 
origins.  Observe,  now,  how  their  natures  were  indicated  by  their 
early  doctrines  and  deeds.  Whiggism  began  with  resistance  to 
Charles  II.  and  his  cabal,  in  their  efforts  to  re-establish  unchecked 
monarchical  power.  The  Whigs  “  regarded  the  monarchy  as  a  civil 
institution,  established  by  the  nation  for  the  benefit  of  all  its 
members;”  while  with  the  Tories  “the  monarch  was  the  delegate 
of  heaven.”  And  these  doctrines  involved  the  beliefs,  the  one 
that  subjection  of  citizen  to  ruler  was  conditional,  and  the  other 
that  it  was  unconditional.  Describing  Whig  and  Tory  as  conceived 
at  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century,  some  fifty  years  before  he 
wrote  his  Dissertation  on  Parties ,  Bolingbroke  says 

“The  power  and  majesty  of  the  people,  an  original  contract,  the 
authority  and  independency  of  Parliaments,  liberty,  resistance,  exclusion, 
abdication,  deposition ;  these  were  ideas  associated,  at  that  time,  to  the 
idea  of  a  Whig,  and  supposed  by  every  Whig  to  be  incommunicable,  and 
inconsistent  with  the  idea  of  a  Tory. 


THE  NEW  TORYISM. 


3 


“Divine,  hereditary,  indefeasible  right,  lineal  succession,  passive- 
obedience,  prerogative,  non-resistance,  slavery,  nay,  and  sometimes  popery 
too,  were  associated  in  many  minds  to  the  idea  of  a  Tory,  and  deemed 
incommunicable  and  inconsistent,  in  the  same  manner,  with  the  idea  of  a 
Whig.” — Dissertation  on  Parties ,  p.  5. 

And  if  we  compare  these  descriptions,  we  see  that  in  the  one  party 
there  was  a  desire  to  resist  and  decrease  the  coercive  power  of  the 
ruler  over  the  subject,  and  in  the  other  party  to  maintain  or  increase 
his  coercive  power.  This  distinction  in  their  aims — a  distinction 
which  transcends  in  meaning  and  importance  all  other  political 
distinctions — was  displayed  in  their  early  doings.  Whig  principles 
were  exemplified  in  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act,  and  in  the  measure  by 
which  judges  were  made  independant  of  the  Crbwn ;  in  defeat  of 
the  Non-Resisting  Test  Bill,  which  proposed  for  legislators  and 
officials  a  compulsory  oath  that  they  would  in  no  case  resist  the 
king  by  arms ;  and,  later,  they  were  exemplified  in  the  Bill  of 
Rights,  framed  to  secure  subjects  against  monarchical  aggressions. 
These  Acts  had  the  same  intrinsic  nature.  The  principle  of  com¬ 
pulsory  co-operation  throughout  social  life  was  weakened  by  them, 
and  the  principle  of  voluntary  co-operation  strengthened.  That  at 
at  a  subsequent  period  the  policy  of  the  party  had  the  same  general 
tendency,  is  well  shown  by  a  remark  of  Mr.  Green  concerning  the 
period  of  Whig  power  after  the  death  of  Anne : — 

“  Before  the  fifty  years  of  their  rule  had  passed,  Englishmen  bad  for¬ 
gotten  that  it  was  possible  to  persecute  for  differences  of  religion,  or  to  put 
down  the  liberty  of  the  press,  or  to  tamper  with  the  administration  of 
justice,  or  to  rule  without  a  Parliament.” — Short  History ,  p.  705. 

And  now,  passing  over  the  war-period  which  closed  the  last 
century  and  began  this,  during  which  that  extension  of  individual 
freedom  previously  gained  was  lost,  and  the  retrograde  movement 
towards  the  social  type  proper  to  militancy  was  shown  by  all  kinds 
of  coercive  measures,  from  those  which  took  by  force  the  persons 
and  property  of  citizens  for  war-purposes  to  those  which  suppressed 
public  meetings  and  sought  to  gag  the  press,  let  us  recall  the  general 
characters  of  those  changes  effected  by  Whigs  or  Liberals  after  the 
re-establishment  of  peace  permitted  revival  of  the  industrial  regime 
and  return  to  its  appropriate  type  of  structure.  Under  growing 
Whig  influence  there  came  repeal  of  the  laws  forbidding  combina¬ 
tions  among  artisans,  as  well  as  of  those  which  interfered  with  their 
freedom  of  travelling.  There  was  the  measure  by  which,  under 


4 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


Whig  pressure,  Dissenters  were  allowed  to  believe  as  they  pleased, 
without  suffering  certain  civil  penalties ;  and  there  was  the  Whig 
measure,  carried  by  Tories  under  compulsion,  which  enabled  Ca¬ 
tholics  to  profess  their  religion  without  losing  part  of  their  free¬ 
dom.  The  area  of  liberty  was  extended  by  Acts  which  forbad  the 
buying  of  negroes  and  the  holding  of  them  in  bondage.  The  East 
India  Company’s  monopoly  was  abolished,  and  trade  with  the  East 
made  open  to  all.  The  political  serfdom  of  the  unrepresented 
was  narrowed  in  area,  both  by  the  Reform  Bill  and  the  Municipal 
Reform  Bill ;  so  that  alike  generally  and  locally,  the  many  were 
less  under  the  coercion  of  the  few.  Dissenters,  no  longer  obliged 
to  submit  to  the  ecclesiastical  form  of  marriage,  were  made  free  to 
wed  by  a  purely  civil  rite.  Later  came  diminution  and  removal  of 
restraints  on  the  buying  of  foreign  commodities  and  the  employ¬ 
ment  of  foreign  vessels  and  foreign  sailors ;  and  later  still  the 
removal  of  those  burdens  on  the  press,  which  were  originally 
imposed  to  hinder  the  diffusion  of  opinion.  And  of  all  these 
changes  it  is  unquestionable  that,  whether  made  or  not  by  Liberals 
themselves,  they  were  made  in  conformity  with  principles  professed 
and  urged  by  Liberals. 

But  why  do  I  enumerate  facts  so  well  known  to  all  P  Simply 
because,  as  intimated  at  the  outset,  it  seems  needful  to  remind 
everybody  what  Liberalism  was  in  the  past,  that  they  may  perceive 
its  unlikeness  to  the  so-called  Liberalism  of  the  present.  It  would 
be  inexcusable  to  name  these  various  measures  for  the  purpose  of 
pointing  out  the  character  common  to  them,  were  it  not  that  in 
our  day  men  have  forgotten  their  common  character.  They  do  not 
remember  that,  in  one  or  other  way,  all  these  truly  Liberal  changes 
diminished  compulsory  co-operation  throughout  social  life  and  in¬ 
creased  voluntary  co-operation.  They  have  forgotten  that,  in  one 
direction  or  other,  they  diminished  the  range  of  governmental 
authority,  and  increased  the  area  within  which  each  citizen  may 
act  unchecked.  They  have  lost  sight  of  the  truth  that  in  past 
times  Liberalism  habitually  stood  for  individual  freedom  versus 
State-coercion. 

And  now  comes  the  inquiry — How  is  it  that  Liberals  have  lost 
sight  of  this  ?  How  is  it  that  Liberalism,  getting  more  and  more 
into  power,  has  grown  more  and  more  coercive  in  its  legislation  ? 
How  is  it  that,  either  directly  through  its  own  majorities  or  in¬ 
directly  through  aid  given  in  such  cases  to  the  majorities  of  its 


THE  NEW  TORYISM. 


5 


opponents,  Liberalism  bas  to  an  increasing  extent  adopted  the 
policy  of  dictating  the  actions  of  citizens,  and,  by  consequence, 
diminishing  the  range  throughout  which  their  actions  remain  free? 
How  are  we  to  explain  this  spreading  confusion  of  thought  which 
has  led  it,  in  pursuit  of  what  appears  to  be  public  good,  to  invert 
the  method  by  which  in  earlier  days  it  achieved  public  good  ? 

Unaccountable  as  at  first  sight  this  unconscious  change  of  policy 
seems,  we  shall  find  that  it  has  arisen  quite  naturally.  Given  the 
unanalytical  thought  ordinarily  brought  to  bear  on  political  matters, 
and,  under  existing  conditions,  nothing  else  was  to  be  expected. 
To  make  this  clear  some  parenthetic  explanations  are  needful. 

From  the  lowest  to  the  highest  creatures,  intelligence  progresses 
by  acts  of  discrimination ;  and  it  continues  so  to  progress  among 
men,  from  the  most  ignorant  to  the  most  cultured.  To  class 
rightly — to  put  in  the  same  group  things  which  are  of  essentially 
the  same  natures,  and  in  other  groups  things  of  natures  essentially 
different — is  the  fundamental  condition  to  right  guidance  of  actions. 
Beginning  with  rudimentary  vision,  which  gives  warning  that  some 
large  opaque  body  is  passing  near  (just  as  closed  eyes  turned  to  the 
window,  perceiving  the  shade  caused  by  a  hand  put  before  them, 
tell  us  of  something  moving  in  front),  the  advance  is  to  developed 
vision,  which,  by  exactly-appreciated  combinations  of  forms, 
colours,  and  motions,  identifies  objects  at  great  distances  as  prey  or 
enemies,  and  so  makes  it  possible  to  improve  the  adjustments  of 
conduct  for  securing  food  or  evading  death.  That  progressing 
perception  of  differences  and  consequent  greater  correctness  of 
classing,  constitutes,  under  one  of  its  chief  aspects,  the  growth  of 
intelligence,  is  equally  seen  when  we  pass  from  the  relatively  simple 
physical  vision  to  the  relatively  complex  intellectual  vision — the 
vision  through  the  agency  of  which,  things  previously  grouped  by 
certain  external  resemblances  or  by  certain  extrinsic  circumstances, 
come  to  be  more  truly  grouped  in  conformity  with  their  intrinsic 
structures  or  natures.  Undeveloped  intellectual  vision  is  just  as 
indiscriminating  and  erroneous  in  its  classings  as  undeveloped 
physical  vision.  Instance  the  early  arrangement  of  plants  into 
the  groups,  trees,  shrubs,  and  herbs :  size,  the  most  conspicuous 
trait,  being  the  ground  of  distinction ;  and  the  assemblages  formed 
being  such  as  united  many  plants  extremely  unlike  in  their  natures, 
and  separated  others  that  are  near  akin.  Or  still  better,  take  the 


6 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


popular  classification  wliicli  puts  together  under  the  same  general 
name,  fish  and  shell-fisli,  and  under  the  sub-name,  shell-fish,  puts 
together  crustaceans  and  molluscs ;  nay,  which  goes  further,  and 
regards  as  fish  the  cetacean  mammals.  Partly  because  of  the  like¬ 
ness  in  their  modes  of  life  as  inhabiting  the  water,  and  partly  because 
of  some  general  resemblance  in  their  flavours,  creatures  that  are  in 
their  essential  natures  far  more  widely  separated  than  a  fish  is 
from  a  bird,  are  associated  in  the  same  class  and  in  the  same  sub¬ 
class. 

Now  the  general  truth  thus  exemplified,  holds  throughout 
those  higher  ranges  of  intellectual  vision  concerned  with  things 
not  presentable  to  the  senses,  and,  among  others,  such  things  as 
political  institutions  and  political  measures.  For  when  thinking 
of  these,  too,  the  results  of  inadequate  intellectual  faculty,  or 
inadequate  culture  of  it,  or  both,  are  erroneous  classings  and  con¬ 
sequent  erroneous  conclusions.  Indeed,  the  liability  to  error  is 
here  much  greater;  since  the  things  with  which  the  intellect  is 
concerned  do  not  admit  of  examination  in  the  same  easy  way. 
You  cannot  touch  or  see  a  political  institution :  it  can  be  known 
only  by  an  effort  of  constructive  imagination.  Neither  can  you 
apprehend  by  physical  perception  a  political  measure :  this  no  less 
requires  a  process  of  mental  representation  by  which  its  elements 
are  put  together  in  thought,  and  the  essential  nature  of  the  com¬ 
bination  conceived.  Here,  therefore,  still  more  than  in  the  cases 
above  named,  defective  intellectual  vision  is  shown  in  grouping  by 
external  characters,  or  extrinsic  circumstances.  How  institutions 
are  wrongly  classed  from  this  cause,  we  see  in  the  common  notion 
that  the  Homan  Republic  was  a  popular  form  of  government. 
Look  into  the  early  ideas  of  the  French  revolutionists  who  aimed 
at  an  ideal  state  of  freedom,  and  you  find  that  the  political  forms 
and  deeds  of  the  Romans  were  their  models ;  and  even  now  a 
historian  might  be  named  who  instances  the  corruptions  of  the 
Roman  Republic  as  showing  us  what  popular  government  leads  to. 
Yet  the  resemblance  between  the  institutions  of  the  Romans  and 
free  institutions  properly  so-called,  was  less  than  that  between  a 
shark  and  a  porpoise — a  resemblance  of  general  external  form 
accompanying  widely  different  internal  structures.  For  the 
Roman  Government  was  that  of  a  small  oligarchy  within  a  larger 
oligarchy:  the  members  of  each  being  unchecked  autocrats.  A 
society  in  which  the  relatively  few  men  who  had  political  power, 


THE  NEW  TORYISM. 


7 


and  were  in  a  qualified  sense  free,  were  so  many  petty  despots, 
holding  not  only  slaves  and  dependents  but  even  children  in  a 
bondage  no  less  absolute  than  that  in  which  they  held  their  cattle, 
was,  by  its  intrinsic  nature,  more  nearly  allied  to  an  ordinary 
despotism  than  to  a  society  of  citizens  politically  equal. 

Passing  now  to  our  special  question,  we  may  understand  the 
kind  of  confusion  in  which  Liberalism  has  lost  itself;  and  the 
origin  of  those  mistaken  classings  of  political  measures  which  have 
misled  it — classings,  as  we  shall  see,  by  conspicuous  external  traits 
instead  of  by  internal  natures.  For  what,  in  the  popular  appre¬ 
hension  and  in  the  apprehension  of  those  who  effected  them,  were 
the  changes  made  by  Liberals  in  the  past  ?  They  were  abolitions 
of  grievances  suffered  by  the  people,  or  by  portions  of  them :  this 
was  the  common  trait  they  had  which  most  impressed  itself  on 
men’s  minds.  They  were  mitigations  of  evils  which  had  directly 
or  indirectly  been  felt  by  large  classes  of  citizens,  as  causes  of 
misery  or  as  hindrances  to  happiness.  And  since,  in  the  minds  of 
most,  a  rectified  evil  is  equivalent  to  an  achieved  good,  these 
measures  came  to  be  thought  of  as  so  many  positive  benefits ;  and 
the  welfare  of  the  many  came  to  be  conceived  alike  by  Liberal 
statesmen  and  Liberal  voters  as  the  aim  of  Liberalism.  Hence 
the  confusion.  The  gaining  of  a  popular  good,  being  the  external 
conspicuous  trait  common  to  Liberal  measures  in  earlier  days 
(then  in  each  case  gained  by  a  relaxation  of  restraints),  it  has 
happened  that  popular  good  has  come  to  be  sought  by  Liberals, 
not  as  an  end  to  be  indirectly  gained  by  relaxations  of  restraints, 
but  as  the  end  to  be  directly  gained.  And  seeking  to  gain  it 
directly,  they  have  used  methods  intrinsically  opposed  to  those 
originally  used. 

And  now,  having  seen  how  this  reversal  of  policy  has  arisen  (or 
partial  reversal,  I  should  say,  for  the  recent  Burials  Act  and  the 
efforts  to  remove  all  remaining  religious  inequalities,  show  con¬ 
tinuance  of  the  original  policy  in  certain  directions),  let  us  proceed 
to  contemplate  the  extent  to  which  it  has  been  carried  during 
recent  times,  and  the  still  greater  extent  to  which  the  future 
will  see  it  carried  if  current  ideas  and  feelings  continue  to  pre¬ 
dominate. 

Before  proceeding,  it  may  be  well  to  say  that  no  reflections 
are  intended  on  the  motives  which  prompted  one  after  another 


8 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


of  these  various  restraints  and  dictations.  These  motives  were 
doubtless  in  nearly  all  cases  good.  It  must  be  admitted  that  the 
restrictions  placed  by  an  Act  of  1870,  on  the  employment  of  women 
and  children  in  Turkey-red  dyeing  works,  were,  in  intention,  no 
less  philanthropic  than  those  of  Edward  VI.,  which  prescribed  the 
minimum  time  for  which  a  journeyman  should  be  retained. 
Without  question,  the  Seed  Supply  (Ireland)  Act  of  1880,  which 
empowered  guardians  to  buy  seed  for  poor  tenants,  and  then  to 
see  it  properly  planted,  was  moved  by  a  desire  for  public  welfare 
no  less  great  than  that  which  in  1533  prescribed  the  number  of 
sheep  a  tenant  might  keep,  or  that  of  1597,  which  commanded  that 
decayed  houses  of  husbandry  should  be  rebuilt.  Nobody  will  dis¬ 
pute  that  the  various  measures  of  late  years  taken  for  restricting 
the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors,  have  been  taken  as  much  with  a 
view  to  public  morals  as  were  the  measures  taken  of  old  for 
checking  the  evils  of  luxury;  as,  for  instance,  in  the  fourteenth 
century,  when  diet  as  well  as  dress  was  restricted.  Everyone 
must  see  that  the  edicts  issued  by  Henry  VIII.  to  prevent  the 
lower  classes  from  playing  dice,  cards,  bowls,  &c.,  were  not  more 
prompted  by  desire  for  popular  welfare  than  were  the  Acts  passed 
of  late  to  check  gambling. 

Further,  I  do  not  intend  here  to  question  the  wisdom  of  these 
modern  interferences,  which  Conservatives  and  Liberals  vie  with 
one  another  in  multiplying,  any  more  than  to  question  the  wisdom 
of  those  ancient  ones  which  they  in  many  cases  resemble.  We  will 
not  now  consider  whether  the  plans  of  late  adopted  for  preserving 
the  lives  of  sailors,  are  or  are  not  more  judicious  than  that  sweeping 
Scotch  measure  which,  in  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century,  pro¬ 
hibited  captains  from  leaving  harbour  during  the  winter.  For 
the  present,  it  shall  remain  undebated  whether  there  is  a  better 
warrant  for  giving  sanitary  officers  powers  to  search  certain  pre¬ 
mises  for  unfit  food,  than  there  was  for  the  law  of  Edward  *IIL, 
under  which  innkeepers  at  seaports  were  sworn  to  search  their 
guests  to  prevent  the  exportation  of  money  or  plate.  We  will 
assume  that  there  is  no  less  sense  in  that  clause  of  the  Canal-boat 
Act,  which  forbids  an  owner  to  board  gratuitously  the  children  of 
the  boatmen,  than  there  was  in  the  Spitalfields  Acts,  which,  up  to 
1824,  for  the  benefit  of  the  artisans,  forbade  the  manufacturers  to 
fix  their  factories  more  than  ten  miles  from  the  Royal  Exchange. 

We  exclude,  then,  these  questions  of  philanthropic  motive  and 


THE  NEW  TORYISM. 


9 


wise  judgment,  taking  both  of  them  for  granted ;  and  have  here 
to  concern  ourselves  solely  with  the  compulsory  nature  of  the 
measures  which,  for  good  or  evil  as  the  case  may  be,  have  been  put 
in  force  during  periods  of  Liberal  ascendancy. 

To  bring  the  illustrations  within  compass,  let  us  commence 
with  1860,  under  the  second  administration  of  Lord  Palmerston. 
In  that  year,  the  restrictions  of  the  Factories  Act  were  extended 
to  bleaching  and  dyeing  works;  authority  was  given  to  provide 
analysts  of  food  and  drink,  to  be  paid  out  of  local  rates  ;  there  was 
an  Act  providing  for  inspection  of  gas-works,  as  well  as  for  fixing 
quality  of  gas  and  limiting  price;  there  was  the  act  which,  in  addi¬ 
tion  to  further  mine-inspection,  made  it  penal  to  employ  boys  under 
twelve  not  attending  school  and  unable  to  read  and  write.  In  1861 
occurred  an  extension  of  the  compulsory  provisions  of  the  Factories 
Act  to  lace-works ;  power  was  given  to  poor-law  guardians,  &c.,  to 
enforce  vaccination;  local  boards  were  authorized  to  fix  rates  of 
hire  for  horses,  ponies,  mules,  asses,  and  boats;  and  certain  locally- 
formed  bodies  had  given  to  them  powers  of  taxing  the  locality 
for  rural  drainage  and  irrigation  works,  and  for  supplying  water  to 
cattle.  In  1862,  an  Act  was  passed  for  restricting  the  employment 
of  women  and  children  in  open-air  bleaching ;  and  an  Act  for 
making  illegal  a  coal-mine  with  a  single  shaft,  or  with  shafts  sepa¬ 
rated  by  less  than  a  specified  space ;  as  well  as  an  Act  giving  the 
Council  of  Medical  Education  the  exclusive  right  to  publish  a 
Pharmacopoeia,  the  price  of  which  is  to  be  fixed  by  the  Treasury. 
In  1863  came  the  extension  of  compulsory  vaccination  to  Scotland, 
and  also  to  Ireland ;  there  came  the  empowering  of  certain  boards 
to  borrow  money  repayable  from  the  local  rates,  to  employ  and  pay 
those  out  of  work ;  there  came  the  authorizing  of  town-authorities 
to  take  possession  of  neglected  ornamental  spaces,  and  rate  the 
inhabitants  for  their  support ;  there  came  the  Bakehouses  Regula¬ 
tion  Act,  which,  besides  specifying  minimum  age  of  employes 
occupied  between  certain  hours,  prescribed  periodical  lime- washing, 
three  coats  of  paint  when  painted,  and  cleaning  with  hot  water 
and  soap  at  least  once  in  six  months ;  and  there  came  also  an  Act 
giving  a  magistrate  authority  to  decide  on  the  wholesomeness  or 
nnwholesomeness  of  food  brought  before  him  by  an  inspector.  Of 
compulsory  legislation  dating  from  1864,  may  be  named  an  exten¬ 
sion  of  the  Factories  Act  to  various  additional  trades,  including 
regulations  for  cleansing  and  ventilation,  and  specifying  of  certain 
2 


10 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


employes  in  match-works,  that  they  might  not  take  meals  on  the 
premises  except  in  the  wood-cutting  places.  Also  there  were 
passed  a  Chimney-Sweepers  Act,  an  Act  for  further  regulating 
the  sale  of  beer  in  Ireland,  an  Act  for  compulsory  testing  of  cables 
and  anchors,  an  Act  extending  the  Public  Works  Act  of  1863, 
and  the  Contagious  Diseases  Act :  which  last  gave  the  police,  in 
specified  places,  powers  which,  in  respect  of  certain  classes  of  women, 
abolished  sundry  of  those  safeguards  to  individual  freedom  estab¬ 
lished  in  past  times.  The  year  1865  witnessed  further  provision 
for  the  reception  and  temporary  relief  of  wanderers  at  the  cost  of 
ratepayers  ;  another  public-house  closing  Act ;  and  an  Act  making 
compulsory  regulations  for  extinguishing  fires  in  London.  Then, 
under  the  Ministry  of  Lord  John  Russell,  in  1866,  have  to  be  named 
an  act  to  regulate  cattle-sheds,  &c.,  in  Scotland,  giving  local 
authorities  powers  to  inspect  sanitary  conditions  and  fix  the  numbers 
of  cattle ;  an  Act  forcing  hop-growers  to  label  their  bags  with  the 
3rear  and  place  of  growth  and  the  true  weight,  and  giving  police 
powers  of  search :  an  Act  to  facilitate  the  building  of  lodging- 
houses  in  Ireland,  and  providing  for  regulation  of  the  inmates ;  a 
Public  Health  Act,  under  which  there  is  registration  of  lodging- 
houses  and  limitation  of  occupants,  with  inspection  and  directions 
for  lime-washing,  &c. ;  and  a'  Public  Libraries  Act,  giving  local 
powers  by  which  a  majority  can  tax  a  minority  for  their  books. 

Passing  now  to  the  legislation  under  the  first  Ministry  of  Mr. 
Gladstone,  we  have,  in  1869,  the  establishment  of  State-telegraphy, 
with  the  accompanying  interdict  on  telegraphing  through  any  other 
agency  ;  we  have  the  empowering  a  Secretary  of  State  to  regulate 
hired  conveyances  in  London ;  we  have  further  and  more  stringent 
regulations  to  prevent  cattle-diseases  from  spreading,  another  Beer¬ 
house  Regulation  Act,  and  a  Sea-birds  Preservation  Act  (ensuring 
greater  mortality  of  fish).  In  1870  we  have  a  law  authorizing  the 
Board  of  Public  Works  to  make  advances  for  landlords’  improve¬ 
ments  and  for  purchase  by  tenants  ;  we  have  the  Act  which  enables 
the  Education  Department  to  form  school-boards  which  shall  pur¬ 
chase  sites  for  schools,  and  may  provide  free  schools  supported  by 
local  rates,  and  enabling  school-boards  to  pay  a  child’s  fees,  to 
compel  parents  to  send  their  children,  &c.  Ac. ;  we  have  a  further 
Eactories  and  Workshops  Act,  making,  among  other  restrictions, 
some  on  the  employment  of  women  and  children  in  fruit-preserving 
and  fish-curing  works.  In  1871  we  meet  with  an  amended  Mer- 


THE  NEW  TORYISM. 


11 


chant  Shipping  Act,  directing  officers  of  the  Board  of  Trade  to 
record  the  draught  of  sea-going  vessels  leaving  port ;  there  is 
another  Factory  and  Workshops  Act,  making  further  restrictions  ; 
there  is  a  Pedlar’s  Act,  inflicting  penalties  for  hawking  without 
a  certificate,  and  limiting  the  district  within  which  the  certifi¬ 
cate  holds,  as  well  as  giving  the  police  power  to  search  pedlars’ 
packs ;  and  there  are  further  measures  for  enforcing  vaccination. 
The  year  1872  had,  among  other  Acts,  one  which  makes  it  illegal 
to  take  for  hire  more  than  one  child  to  nurse,  unless  in  a  house 
registered  by  the  authorities,  who  prescribe  the  number  of  infants 
to  be  received ;  it  had  a  Licensing  Act,  interdicting  sale  of  spirits  to 
those  apparently  under  sixteen  ;  and  it  had  another  Merchant  Ship¬ 
ping  Act,  establishing  an  annual  survey  of  passenger  steamers.  Then 
in  1873  was  passed  the  Agricultural  Children’s  Act,  which  makes  it 
penal  for  a  farmer  to  employ  a  child  who  has  neither  certificate  of 
elementary  education  nor  of  certain  prescribed  school-attendances ; 
and  there  was  passed  a  Merchant  Shipping  Act,  requiring  on  each 
vessel  a  scale  showing  draught  and  giving  the  Board  of  Trade  power 
to  fix  the  numbers  of  boats  and  life-saving  appliances  to  be  carried. 

Turn  now  to  Liberal  law-making  under  the  present  Ministry. 
We  have,  in  1880,  a  law  which  forbids  conditional  advance-notes 
in  payment  of  sailors’  wages ;  also  a  law  which  dictates  certain 
arrangements  for  the  safe  carriage  of  grain- cargoes ;  also  a  law 
increasing  local  coercion  over  parents  to  send  their  children  to 
school.  In  1881  comes  legislation  to  prevent  trawling  over  clam- 
beds  and  bait-beds,  and  an  interdict  making  it  impossible  to  buy 
a  glass  of  beer  on  Sunday  in  Wales.  In  1882  the  Board  of  Trade 
was  authorised  to  grant  licences  to  generate  and  sell  electricity, 
and  municipal  bodies  were  enabled  to  levy  rates  for  electric-lighting ; 
further  exactions  from  ratepayers  were  authorized  for  facilitating 
more  accessible  baths  and  washhouses ;  and  local  authorities  were 
empowered  to  make  bye-laws  for  securing  the  decent  lodging 
of  persons  engaged  in  picking  fruit  and  vegetables.  Of  such 
legislation  during  1883  may  be  named  the  Cheap  Trains  Act, 
which,  partly  by  taking  the  nation  to  the  extent  of  £400,000 
a  year  (in  the  shape  of  relinquished  passenger  duty),  and 
partly  at  the  cost  of  railway-proprietors,  still  further  cheapens 
travelling  for  workmen :  the  Board  of  Trade,  through  the  Railway 
Commissioners,  being  empowered  to  ensure  sufficiently  good  and 
frequent  accommodation.  Again,  there  is  the  Act  w7hicb,  under 


12 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


penalty  of  £10  for  disobedience,  forbids  tbe  payment  of  wages  to 
workmen  at  or  within  public-houses  ;  there  is  another  Factory  and 
Workshops  Act,  commanding  inspection  of  white  lead  works  (to 
see  that  there  are  provided  overalls,  respirators,  baths,  acidulated 
drinks,  &c.)  and  of  bake-houses,  regulating  times  of  employment 
in  both,  and  prescribing  in  detail  some  constructions  for  the  last, 
which  are  to  be  kept  in  a  condition  satisfactory  to  the  inspectors. 

But  we  are  far  from  forming  an  adequate  conception  if  we  look 
only  at  the  compulsory  legislation  which  has  actually  been  estab¬ 
lished  of  late  years.  We  must  look  also  at  that  which  is  advo¬ 
cated,  and  which  threatens  to  be  far  more  sweeping  in  rano-e  and 
stringent  in  character.  We  have  lately  had  a  Cabinet  Minister,  one 
of  the  most  advanced  Liberals,  so-called,  who  pooh-poohs  the  plans 
of  the  late  Government  for  improving  industrial  dwellings  as  so 
much  “tinkering and  contends  for  effectual  coercion  to  be  exer¬ 
cised  over  owners  of  small  houses,  over  land-owners,  and  over  rate- 
payers.  Here  is  another  Cabinet  Minister  who,  addressing  his 
constituents,  speaks  slightingly  of  the  doings  of  philanthropic 
societies  and  religious  bodies  to  help  the  poor,  and  says  that  “  the 
whole  of  the  people  of  this  country  ought  to  look  upon  this  work 
as  being  their  own  work that  is  to  say,  some  extensive  Govern¬ 
ment  measure  is  called  for.  Again,  we  have  a  Radical  member  of 
Pailiament  who  leads  a  large  and  powerful  body,  aiming  with 
annually-increasing  promise  of  success,  to  enforce  sobriety  by 
giving  to  local  majorities  powers  to  prevent  freedom  of  exchange 
in  respect  of  certain  commodities.  Regulation  of  the  hours  of 
labour  for  certain  classes,  which  has  been  made  more  and  more 
general  by  successive  extensions  of  the  Factories  Acts,  is  likely 
now  to  be  made  still  more  general :  a  measure  is  to  be  proposed 
bringing  the  employes  in  all  shops  under  such  regulation.  There 
is  a  rising  demand,  too,  that  education  shall  be  made  gratis  for 
all.  The  payment  of  school-fees  is  beginning  to  be  denounced  as  a 
wiong .  the  State  must  take  the  whole  burden.  Mbreover,  it  is 
proposed  by  many  that  the  State,  regarded  as  an  undoubtedly  com¬ 
petent  judge  of  what  constitutes  good  education  for  the  poor,  shall 

undertake  also  to  prescribe  good  education  for  the  middle  classes _ 

shall  stamp  the  children  of  these,  too,  after  a  State  pattern,  con¬ 
cerning  the  goodness  of  which  they  have  no  more  doubt  than  the 
Chinese  had  when  they  fixed  theirs.  Then  there  is  the  “  endow¬ 
ment  of  research/’  of  late  energetically  urged.  Already  the 


THE  NEW  TORYISM. 


13 


Government  gives  every  year  the  snm  of  £4,000  for  this  purpose, 
to  be  distributed  through  the  Royal  Society ;  and  in  the  absence 
of  those  who  have  strong  motives  for  resisting  the  pressure  of  the 
interested  backed  by  those  they  easily  persuade,  it  may  by-and-by 
establish  that  paid  “  priesthood  of  science  ”  long  ago  advocated  by 
Sir  David  Brewster.  Once  more,  plausible  proposals  are  made 
that  there  should  be  organized  a  system  of  compulsory  insurance, 
by  which  men  during  their  early  lives  shall  be  forced  to  provide 
for  the  time  when  they  will  be  incapacitated. 

Nor  does  enumeration  of  these  further  measures  of  coercive 
rule,  looming  on  us  near  at  hand  or  in  the  distance,  complete  the 
account.  Nothing  more  than  cursory  allusion  has  yet  been  made 
to  that  accompanying  compulsion  which  takes  the  form  of  increased 
taxation,  general  and  local.  Partly  for  defraying  the  costs  of 
carrying  out  these  ever-multiplying  coercive  measures,  each  of 
which  requires  an  additional  staff  of  officers,  and  partly  to  meet 
the  outlay  for  new  public  institutions,  such  as  board-schools,  free 
libraries,  public  museums,  baths  and  washhouses,  recreation 
grounds,  &c.,  &c.,  local  rates  are  year  after  year  increased ;  as  the 
general  taxation  is  increased  by  grants  for  education  and  to  the 
departments  of  science  and  art,  &c.  Every  one  of  these  involves 
further  coercion — restricts  still  more  the  freedom  of  the  citizen. 
For  the  implied  address  accompanying  every  additional  exaction  is 
— “  Hitherto  you  have  been  free  to  spend  this  portion  of  your 
earnings  in  any  way  which  pleased  you ;  hereafter  you  shall  not  be 
free  so  to  spend  it,  but  we  will  spend  it  for  the  general  benefit.” 
Thus,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  and  in  most  cases  both  at  once, 
the  citizen  is  at  each  further  stage  in  the  growth  of  this  compulsory 
legislation,  deprived  of  some  liberty  which  he  previously  had. 

Such,  then,  are  the  doings  of  the  party  which  claims  the  name 
of  Liberal ;  and  which  calls  itself  Liberal  as  being  the  advocate  of 
extended  freedom. 

I  doubt  not  that  many  a  member  of  the  party  has  read  the 
preceding  section  with  impatience ;  wanting,  as  he  does,  to  point 
out  an  immense  oversight  which  he  thinks  destroys  the  validity  of 
the  argument.  “You  forget,”  he  wishes  to  say,  “  the  fundamental 
difference  between  the  power  which,  in  the  past,  established  those 
restraints  that  Liberalism  abolished,  and  the  power  which,  in  the 
present,  establishes  the  restraints  yoa  call  anti-Liberal.  You 


14 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


forget  that  the  one  was  an  irresponsible  power,  while  the  other  is 
a  responsible  power.  You  forget  that  if  by  the  recent  legislation 
of  Liberals,  people  are  variously  regulated,  the  body  which  regu¬ 
lates  them  is  of  their  own  creating,  and  has  their  warrant  for  its 
acts.” 

My  answer  is,  that  I  have  not  forgotten  this  difference,  but  am 
prepared  to  contend  that  the  difference  is  in  large  measure  irrele¬ 
vant  to  the  issue. 

In  the  first  place,  the  real  issue  is  whether  the  lives  of  citizens 
are  more  interfered  with  than  they  were ;  not  the  nature  of  the 
agency  which  interferes  with  them.  Take  a  simpler  case.  A 
member  of  a  trades’  union  has  joined  others  in  establishing 
an  organization  of  a  purely  representative  character.  By  it 
he  is  compelled  to  strike  if  a  majority  so  decide ;  he  is  for¬ 
bidden  to  accept  work  save  under  the  conditions  they  dictate ;  he 
is  prevented  from  profiting  by  his  superior  ability  or  energy  to  the 
extent  he  might  do  were  it  not  for  their  interdict.  He  cannot  dis¬ 
obey  without  abandoning  those  pecuniary  benefits  of  the  organi¬ 
zation  for  which  he  has  subscribed,  and  bringing’  on  himself  the 
persecution,  and  perhaps  violence,  of  his  fellows.  Is  he  any  the 
less  coerced  because  the  body  coercing  him  is  one  which  he  had  an 
equal  voice  with  the  rest  in  forming  ? 

In  the  second  place,  if  it  be  objected  that  the  analogy  is  faulty, 
since  the  governing  body  of  a  nation,  to  which,  as  protector  of  the 
national  life  and  interests,  all  must  submit  under  penalty  of  social 
disorganization,  has  a  far  higher  authority  over  citizens  than  the 
government  of  any  private  organization  can  have  over  its  members  ; 
then  the  reply  is  that,  granting  the  difference,  the  answer  made 
continues  valid.  If  men  use  their  liberty  in  such  a  way  as  to  sur¬ 
render  their  liberty,  are  they  thereafter  any  the  less  slaves  ?  If 
people  by  a  plebiscite  elect  a  man  despot  over  them,  do  they  remain 
free  because  the  despotism  was  of  their  own  making  P  Are  the 
coercive  edicts  issued  by  him  to  be  regarded  as  legitimate  because 
they  are  the  ultimate  outcome  of  their  own  votes  ?  As  w7ell  might 
it  be  argued  that  the  East  African,  who  breaks  a  spear  in  another’s 
presence  that  he  may  so  become  bondsman  to  him,  still  retains  his 
liberty  because  he  freely  chose  his  master. 

Finally  if  any,  not  without  marks  of  irritation  as  I  can  imagine, 
repudiate  this  reasoning,  and  say  that  there  is  no  true  parallelism 
between  the  relation  of  people  to  government  where  an  irresponsible 


THE  NEW  TORYISM. 


15 


single  ruler  has  been  permanently  elected,  and  tlie  relation  where  a 
responsible  representative  body  is  maintained,  and  from  time  to 
time  re-elected;  then  there  comes  the  ultimate  reply — an  altogether 
heterodox  reply — by  which  most  will  be  greatly  astonished.  This 
reply  is,  that  these  multitudinous  restraining  acts  are  not  defensible 
on  the  ground  that  they  proceed  from  a  popularly-chosen  body;  for 
that  the  authority  of  a  popularly-chosen  body  is  no  more  to  be 
regarded  as  an  unlimited  au  thority  than  the  authority  of  a  monarch ; 
and  that  as  true  Liberalism  in  the  past  disputed  the  assumption  of 
a  monarch’s  unlimited  authority,  so  true  Liberalism  in  the  present 
will  dispute  the  assumption  of  unlimited  parliamentary  authority. 
Of  this,  however,  more  anon.  Here  I  merely  indicate  it  as  an 
ultimate  answer. 

Meanwhile  it  suffices  to  point  out  that  until  recently,  just  as  of 
old,  true  Liberalism  was  shown  by  its  acts  to  be  moving  towards 
the  theory  of  a  limited  parliamentary  authority.  All  these  aboli¬ 
tions  of  restraints  over  religious  beliefs  and  observances,  over 
exchange  and  transit,  over  trade- combinations  and  the  travelling  of 
artisans,  over  the  publication  of  opinions,  theological  or  political, 
&c.,  &c.,  were  tacit  assertions  of  the  desirableness  of  limitation. 
In  the  same  way  that  the  abandonment  of  sumptuary  laws,  of 
laws  forbidding  this  or  that  kind  of  amusement,  of  laws  dictating 
modes  of  farming,  and  many  others  of  like  meddling  nature,  which 
took  place  in  early  days,  was  an  implied  admission  that  the  State 
ought  not  to  interfere  in  such  matters;  so  those  removals  of 
hindrances  to  individual  activities  of  one  or  other  kind,  which  the 
Liberalism  of  the  last  generation  effected,  were  practical  confes¬ 
sions  that  in  these  directions,  too,  the  sphere  of  governmental 
action  should  be  narrowed.  And  this  recognition  of  the  propriety 
of  restricting  governmental  action  was  a  preparation  for  restricting 
it  in  theory.  One  of  the  most  familiar  political  truths  is  that,  in 
the  course  of  social  evolution,  usage  precedes  law ;  and  that  when 
usage  has  been  well  established  it  becomes  law  by  receiving  autho¬ 
ritative  endorsement  and  defined  form.  Manifestly  then,  Liberalism 
in  the  past,  by  its  practice  of  limitation,  was  preparing  the  way  for 
the  principle  of  limitation. 

But  returning  from  these  more  general  considerations  to  the 
special  question,  I  emphasize  the  reply  that  the  liberty  which  a 
citizen  enjoys  is  to  be  measured,  not  by  the  nature  of  the  govern¬ 
mental  machinery  he  lives  under,  whether  representative  ox  other, 


16 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


\ 


but  by  the  relative  paucity  of  the  restraints  it  imposes  on  him; 
and  that,  whether  this  machinery  is  or  is  not  one  that  he  has 
shared  in  making,  its  actions  are  not  of  the  kind  proper  to 
Liberalism  if  they  increase  such  restraints  beyond  those  which  are 
needful  for  preventing  him  from  directly  or  indirectly  aggressing 
on  his  fellows— needfnl,  that  is,  for  maintaining  the  liberties  of  his 
fellows  against  his  invasions  of  them  :  restraints  which  are,  there¬ 
fore,  to  be  distinguished  as  negatively  coercive,  not  positively 
coercive.  J 

Probably,  however,  the  Liberal,  and  still  more  the  sub-species 
Radical,  who  more  than  any  other  in  these  latter  days  seems  under 
the  impression  that  so  long  as  he  has  a  good  end  in  view  he  is 
warranted  in  exercising  over  men  all  the  coercion  he  is  able,  will 
continue  to  protest.  .  Knowing  that  his  aim  is  popular  benefit  of 
some  kind,  to  be  achieved  in  some  way,  and  believing  that  the  Tory 
is,  contrariwise,  prompted  by  class-interest  and  the  desire  to  main¬ 
tain  class-power,  he  will  regard  it  as  palpably  absurd  to  group  him 

as  one  of  the  same  genus,  and  will  scorn  the  reasoning  used  to 
prove  that  he  belongs  to  it. 

.  Perhaps  an  analogy  will  help  him  to  see  its  validity.  If,  away 
m  the  far  East,  where  personal  government  is  the  only  form  of 
government  known,  he  heard  from  the  inhabitants  an  account  of  a 
struggle  by  which  they  had  deposed  a  cruel  and  vicious  despot,  and 

put  m  his  place  one  whose  acts  proved  his  desire  for  their  welfare _ 

if,  after  listening  to  their  self-gratulatious,  he  told  them  that  they 
had  not  essentially  changed  the  nature  of  their  government,  he 
would  greatly  astonish  them ;  and  probably  he  would  have  diffi¬ 
culty  in  making  them  understand  that  the  substitution  of  a  bene¬ 
volent  despot  for  a  malevolent  despot,  still  left  the  government  a 
despotism.  Similarly  with  Toryism  as  rightly  conceived.  Standing 
as  1  does  for  coercion  by  the  State  versus  the  freedom  of  the  indL 
vi  ual  Toryism  remains  Toryism,  whether  it  extends  this  coercion 
tor  selfish  or  unselfish  reasons.  As  certainly  as  the  despot  is  still 
a  despot,  whether  his  motives  for  arbitrary  rule  are  good  or  bad  • 
so  certainly  is  the  Tory  still  a  Tory,  whether  he  has  egoistic  or  al- 
ruistic  motives  for  using  State-power  to  restrict  the  liberty  of  the 
citizen,  beyond  the  degree  required  for  maintaining  the  liberties  of 
other  citizens.  The  altruistic  Tory  as  well  as  the  egoistic  Tory 
e  ongs  to  the  genus  Tory ;  though  he  forms  a  new  species  of  the 


THE  NEW  TORYISM. 


17 


genus.  And  both  stand  in  distinct  contrast  with  the  Liberal  as 
defined  in  the  days  when  Liberals  were  rightly  so  called,  and  when 
the  definition  was— “  one  who  advocates  greater  freedom  from 
restraint,  especially  in  political  institutions. 

Thus,  then,  is  justified  the  paradox  I  set  ont  with.  As  we  have 
seen,  Toryism  and  Liberalism  originally  emerged,  the  one  from 
militancy  and  the  other  from  industrialism.  The  one  stood  for  the 
regime  of  status  and  the  other  for  the  regime  of  contract— the  one 
for  that  system  of  compulsory  co-operation  which  accompanies  the 
legal  inequality  of  classes,  and  the  other  for  that  voluntary  co¬ 
operation  which  accompanies  their  legal  equality ;  and  beyond  all 
question  the  early  acts  of  the  two  parties  were  respectively  for  the 
maintenance  of  agencies  which  effect  this  compulsory  co-operation, 
and  for  the  weakening  or  curbing  of  them.  Manifestly  the 
implication  is  that,  in  so  far  as  it  has  been  extending  the  system 
of  compulsion,  what  is  now  called  Liberalism  is  a  new  form  of 

Toryism. 

How  truly  this  is  so,  we  shall  see  still  more  clearly  on  looking 
at  the  facts  the  other  side  upwards,  which  we  will  presently  do. 


Note.— By  sundry  newspapers  which  noticed  this  article  when 
it  was  originally  published,  the  meaning  of  the  above  paragraphs 
was  supposed  to  be  that  Liberals  and  Tories  have  changed  places. 
This,  however,  is  by  no  means  the  implication.  A  new  species  of 
Tory  may  arise  without  disappearance  of  the  original .  species. 
When  saying,  as  on  page  8,  that  in  our  days  “  Conservatives  and 
Liberals  vie  with  one  another  in  multiplying”  interferences,  I 
clearly  implied  the  belief  that  while  Liberals  have  taken  to  coercive 
legislation,  Conservatives  have  not  abandoned  it.  Nevertheless,  it 
is&true  that  the  laws  made  by  Liberals  are  so  greatly  increasing 
the  compulsions  and  restraints  exercised  over  citizens,  that  among 
Conservatives  who  suffer  from  this  aggressiveness  there  is  growing 
up  a  tendency  to  resist  it.  Proof  is  furnished  by  the  fact  that 
the  “  Liberty  and  Property  Defence  League,”  largely  consisting 
of  Conservatives,  has  taken  for  its  motto  “  Individualism  versus 
Socialism.”  So  that  if  the  present  drift  of  things  continues,  it 
may  by  and  by  really  happen  that  the  Tories  will  be  defenders 
of  liberties  which  the  Liberals,  in  pursuit  of  what  they  think 
popular  welfare,  trample  under  foot. 


THE  COMING  SLAVERY. 


rlHE  kinship  of  pity  to  love  is  shown  among  other  ways  in  this, 
that  it  idealizes  its  object.  Sympathy  with  one  in  suffering 
suppresses,  for  the  time  being,  remembrance  of  his  transgressions. 
The  feeling  which  vents  itself  in  “  poor  follow  !  ”  on  seeing  one  in 
agony,  excludes  the  ’thought  of  “bad  fellow,’’  which  might  at 
another  time  arise.  Naturally,  then,  if  the  wretched  are  unknown 
or  but  vaguely  known,  all  the  demerits  they  may  have  are 
ignored;  and  thus  it  happens  that  when,  as  just  now,  the  miseries 
of  the  poor  are  depicted,  they  are  thought  of  as  the  miseries  of  the 
deserving  poor,  instead  of  being  thought  of,  as  in  large  measure 
they  should  be,  as  the  miseries  of  the  undeserving  poor.  Those 
whose  hardships  are  set  forth  in  pamphlets  and  proclaimed  in 
sermons  and  speeches  which  echo  throughout  society,  are  assumed 
to  be  all  worthy  souls,  grievously  wrronged ;  and  none  of  them  are 
thought  of  as  bearing  the  penalties  of  their  own  misdeeds. 

On  hailing  a  cab  in  a  London  street,  it  is  surprising  how 
frequently  the  door  is  officiously  opened  by  one  who  expects  to  get 
someth!  ug  for  his  trouble.  The  surprise  lessens  after  counting 
the  many  loungers  about  tavern-doors,  or  after  observing  the 
quickness  with  which  a  street-performance,  or  procession,  draws 
from  neighbouring  slums  and  stable-yards  a  group  of  idlers. 
Seeing  how  numerous  they  are  in  every  small  area,  it  becomes 
manifest  that  tens  of  thousands  of  such  swarm  through  London. 
“  They  have  no  work,”  you  say.  Say  rather  that  they  either 
refuse  work  or  quickly  tarn  themselves  out  of  it.  They  are 
8 imply  good-for-nothings,  who  in  one  way  or  other  live  on  the 
good-for-somethings — vagrants  and  sots,  criminals  and  those  on 
the  way  to  crime,  youths  who  are  burdens  on  hard-worked  parents, 


THE  COMING  SLAVERY. 


19 


men  who  appropriate  the  wages  of  their  wives,  fellows  who  share 
the  gains  of  prostitutes ;  and  then,  less  visible  and  less  numerous, 
there  is  a  corresponding  class  of  women. 

Is  it  natural  that  happiness  should  be  the  lot  of  such  ?  or  is  it 
natural  that  they  should  bring  unhappiness  on  themselves  and 
those  connected  with  them  ?  Is  it  not  manifest  that  there  must 
exist  in  our  midst  an  immense  amount  of  misery  which  is  a  normal 
result  of  misconduct,  and  ought  not  to  be  dissociated  from  it  ? 
There  is  a  notion,  always  more  or  less  prevalent  and  just  now 
vociferously  expressed,  that  all  social  suffering  is  removable,  and 
that  it  is  the  duty  of  somebody  or  other  to  remove  it.  Both  these 
beliefs  are  false.  To  separate  pain  from  ill-doing  is  to  fight  against 
the  constitution  of  things,  and  will  be  followed  by  far  more  pain. 
Saving  men  from  the  natural  penalties  of  dissolute  living,  even¬ 
tually  necessitates  the  infliction  of  artificial  peualties  in  solitary 
cells,  on  tread-wheels,  and  by  the  lash.  I  suppose  a  dictum,  on 
which  the  current  creed  and  the  creed  of  science  are  at  one,  may 
be  considered  to  have  as  high  an  authority  as  can  be  found.  Well, 
the  command  “  if  any  would  not  work  neither  should  he  eat,”  is 
simply  a  Christian  enunciation  of  that  universal  law  of  Nature 
under  which  life  has  reached  its  present  height — the  law  that  a 
creature  not  energetic  enough  to  maintain  itself  must  die  :  the  sole 
difference  being  that  the  law  which  in  the  one  case  is  to  be  arti¬ 
ficially  enforced,  is,  in  the  other  case,  a  natural  necessity.  And  yet 
this  particular  tenet  of  their  religion  which  science  so  manifestly 
justifies,  is  the  one  which  Christians  seem  least  inclined  to  accept. 
The  current  assumption  is  that  there  should  be  no  suffering,  and 
that  society  is  to  blame  for  that  which  exists. 

“  But  surely  we  are  not  without  responsibilities,  even  when  the 
suffering  is  that  of  the  unworthy  ?  ” 

If  the  meaning  of  the  word  “we”  be  so  expanded  as  to 
include  with  ourselves  our  ancestors,  and  especially  our  ancestral 
legislators,  I  agree.  I  admit  that  those  who  made,  and  modified, 
and  administered,  the  old  Poor  Law,  were  responsible  for  pro¬ 
ducing  an  appalling  amount  of  demoralization,  which  it  will  take 
more  than  one  generation  to  remove.  I  admit,  too,  the  partial 
responsibility  of  recent  and  present  law-makers  for  regulations 
which  have  brought  into  being  a  permanent  body  of  tramps, 
who  ramble  from  union  to  union  ;  and  also  their  responsibility  for 
maintaining  a  constant  suoply  ci  felons  by  sending  back  convicts 


20 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


into  society  under  such  conditions  that  they  are  almost  compelled 
again  to  commit  crimes.  Moreover,  I  admit  that  the  philanthropic 
are  not  without  their  share  of  responsibility ;  since,  that  they  may 
aid  the  offspring  of  the  unworthy,  they  disadvantage  the  offspring 
of  the  worthy  through  burdening  their  parents  by  increased  local 
rates,  Nay,  I  even  admit  that  these  swarms  of  good-for-nothings, 
fostered  and  multiplied  by  public  and  private  agencies,  have,  by 
sundry  mischievous  meddlings,  been  made  to  suffer  more  than 
they  would  otherwise  have  suffered.  Are  these  the  responsibilities 
meant  ?  I  suspect  not. 

But  now,  leaving  the  question  of  responsibilities,  however  con¬ 
ceived,  and  considering  only  the  evil  itself,  what  shall  we  say  of  its 
treatment  ?  Let  me  begin  with  a  fact. 

A  late  uncle  of  mine,  the  Bev.  Thomas  Spencer,  for  some 
twenty  years  incumbent  of  Hinton  Charterhouse,  near  Bath,  no 
sooner  entered  on  his  parish  duties  than  he  proved  himself  anxious 
for  the  welfare  of  the  poor,  by  establishing  a  school,  a  library,  a 
clothing  club,  and  land-allotments,  besides  building  some  model 
cottages.  Moreover,  up  to  1833  he  was  a  pauper’s  friend— always 
for  the  pauper  against  the  overseer.  There  presently  came,  however, 
the  debates  on  the  Poor  Law,  which  impressed  him  with  the  evils 
of  the  system  then  in  force.  Though  an  ardent  philanthropist  he 
was  not  a  timid  sentimentalist.  The  result  was  that,  immediately 
the  new  Poor  Law  was  passed,  he  proceeded  to  carry  out  its 
provisions  in  his  parish.  Almost  universal  opposition  was 
encountered  by  him  :  not  the  poor  only  being  his  opponents,  but 
even  the  farmers  on  whom  came  the  burden  of  heavy  poor-rates. 
For,  strange  to  say,  their  interests  had  become  apparently  identified 
with  the  maintenance  of  this  system  which  taxed  them  so  largely. 
The  explanation  is  that  there  had  grown  up  the  practice  of  paying 
out  of  the  rates  a  part  of  the  wages  of  each  farm-servant — “  make- 
wages,  as  the  sum  was  called.  And  though  the  farmers  contri¬ 
buted  most  of  the  fund  from  which  il  make- wages  ”  were  paid, 
yet,  since  all  other  ratepayers  contributed,  the  farmers  seemed 
to  gain  by  the  arrangement.  My  uncle,  however,  not  easily 
deterred,  faced  all  this  opposition  and  enforced  the  law.  The 
result  was  that  in  two  years  the  rates  were  reduced  from  £700  a 
year  to  £200  a  year;  while  the  condition  of  the  parish  was  greatly 
improved.  Those  who  had  hitherto  loitered  at  the  corners  of 


THE  COMING  SLAVERY. 


21 


tlie  streets,  or  at  the  doors  of  the  beer-shops,  had  something  else 
to  do,  and  one  after  another  they  obtained  employment ;  ”  so  that 
out  of  a  population  of  800,  only  15  had  to  be  sent  as  incapable 
paupers  to  the  Bath  Union  (when  tbat  was  formed),  in  place  of 
the  100  who  received  out-door  relief  a  short  time  before.  If  it  be 
said  that  the  £20  telescope  which,  a  few  years  after,  his  parishioners 
presented  to  my  uncle,  marked  only  the  gratitude  of  the  rate¬ 
payers  ;  then  my  reply  is  the  fact  that  when,  some  years  later  still, 
having  killed  himself  by  overwork  in  pursuit  of  popular  welfare, 
he  was  taken  to  Hinton  to  be  buried,  the  procession  which  followed 
him  to  the  grave  included  not  the  well-to-do  only  but  the  poor. 

Several  motives  have  prompted  this  brief  narrative.  One  is  the 
wish  to  prove  that  sympathy  with  the  people  and  self-sacrificing 
efforts  on  their  behalf,  do  not  necessarily  imply  approval  of 
gratuitous  aids.  Another  is  the  desire  to  show  that  benefit  may 
result,  not  from  multiplication  of  artificial  appliances  to  mitigate 
distress,  but,  contrariwise,  from  diminution  of  them.  And  a 
further  purpose  I  have  in  view  is  that  of  preparing  the  way  for  an 
analogy. 

Under  another  form  and  in  a  different  sphere,  we  are  now 
yearly  extending  a  system  which  is  identical  in  nature  with  the 
system  of  “  make- wages  ”  under  the  old  Poor  Law.  Little  as 
politicians  recognize  the  fact,  it  is  nevertheless  demonstrable  that 
these  various  public  appliances  for  working-class  comfort,  which 
they  are  supplying  at  the  cost  of  ratepayers,  are  intrinsically  of  the 
same  nature  as  those  which,  in  past  times,  treated  the  farmer’s  man 
as  half-labourer  and  half-pauper.  In  either  case  the  worker 
receives  in  return  for  what  he  does,  money  wherewith  to  buy 
certain  of  the  things  he  wants  ;  while,  to  procure  the  rest  of  them 
for  him,  money  is  furnished  out  of  a  common  fund  raised  by  taxes. 
What  matters  it  whether  the  things  supplied  by  ratepayers  for 
nothing,  instead  of  by  the  employer  in  payment,  are  of  this  kind 
or  that  kind  ?  the  principle  is  the  same.  Por  sums  received  let  us 
substitute  the  commodities  and  benefits  purchased ;  and  then  see 
how  the  matter  stands.  In  old  Poor-Law  times,  the  farmer  gave 
for  work  done  the  equivalent,  say  of  house-rent,  bread,  clothes,  and 
fire ;  while  the  ratepayers  practically  supplied  the  man  and  his 
family  with  their  shoes,  tea,  sugar,  candles,  a  little  bacon,  &c.  The 
division  is,  of  course,  arbitrary  ;  but  unquestionably  the  farmer  and 
the  ratepapers  furnished  these  things  between  them.  At  the 


22 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATED 


present  time  the  artisan  receives  from  his  employer  in  wages,  the 
equivalent  of  the  consumable  commodities  he  wants ;  while  from 
the  public  comes  satisfaction  for  others  of  his  needs  and  desires. 
At  the  cost  of  ratepayers  he  has  in  some  cases,  and  will  presently 
have  in  more,  a  house  at  less  than  its  commercial  value ;  for  of 
course  when,  as  in  Liverpool,  a  municipality  spends  nearly 
£200,000  in  pulling  down  and  reconstructing  low-class  dwellings, 
and  is  about  to  spend  as  much  again,  the  implication  is  that  in 
some  way  the  ratepayers  supply  the  poor  with  more  accommo¬ 
dation  than  the  rents  they  pay  would  otherwise  have  brought. 
The  artisan  further  receives  from  them,  in  schooling  for  his 
children,  much  more  than  he  pays  for ;  and  there  is  every  pro¬ 
bability  that  he  will  presently  receive  it  from  them  gratis.  The 
ratepayers  also  satisfy  what  desire  he  may  have  for  books  and 
newspapers,  and  comfortable  places  to  read  them  in.  In  some 
cases  too,  as  in  Manchester,  gymnasia  for  his  children  of  both 
sexes,  as  well  as  recreation  grounds,  are  provided.  That  is  to  say, 
he  obtains  from  a  fund  raised  by  local  taxes,  certain  benefits  beyond 
those  which  the  sum  received  for  his  labour  enables  him  to 
purchase.  The  sole  difference,  then,  between  this  system  and  the 
old  system  of  “  make- wages,”  is  between  the  kinds  of  satisfactions 
obtained;  and  this  difference  does  not  in  the  least  affect  the 
nature  of  the  arrangement. 

Moreover,  the  two  are  pervaded  by  substantially  the  same 
illusion.  In  the  one  case,  as  in  the  other,  what  looks  like  a  gratis 
benefit  is  not  a  gratis  benefit.  The  amount  which,  under  the  old  Poor 
Law,  the  half- pauperized  labourer  received  from  the  parish  to  eke 
out  his  weekly  income,  was  not  really,  as  it  appeared,  a  bonus ;  for 
it  was  accompanied  by  a  substantially-equivalent  decrease  of  his 
wages,  as  was  quickly  proved  when  the  system  was  abolished  and 
the  wages  rose.  Just  so  is  it  with  these  seeming  boons  received 
by  working  people  in  towns.  I  do  not  refer  only  to  the  fact  that 
they  unawares  pay  in  part  through  the  raised  rents  of  their  dwell¬ 
ings  (when  they  are  not  actual  ratepayers) ;  but  I  refer  to  the  fact 
that  the  wages  received  by  them  are,  like  the  wages  of  the  farm- 
labourer,  diminished  by  these  public  burdens  falling  on  employers. 
Read  the  accounts  coming  of  late  from  Lancashire  concerning  the 
cotton-strike,  containing  proofs,  given  by  artisans  themselves,  that 
the  margin  of  profit  is  so  narrow  that  the  less  skilful  manufacturers, 
as  well  as  those  with  deficient  capital,  fail,  and  that  the  companies 


THE  COMING  SLAVERY. 


23 


of  co-operators  who  compete  with  them  can  rarely  hold  their  own ; 
and  then  consider  what  is  the  implication  respecting  wages.  Amono* 
the  costs  of  production  have  to  he  reckoned  taxes,  general  and 
local.  .  If,  as  in  our  large  towns,  the  local  rates  now  amount  to 
one-third  of  the  rental  or  more— if  the  employer  has  to  pay  this, 
not  on  his  private  dwelling  only,  but  on  his  business-premises’ 
factories,  warehouses,  or  the  like ;  it  results  that  the  interest  on 
his  capital  must  be  diminished  by  that  amount,  or  the  amount  must 
be  taken  from  the  wages-fund,  or  partly  one  and  partly  the  other. 
And  if  competition  among  capitalists  in  the  same  business  and  in 
other  businesses,  has  the  effect  of  so  keeping  down  interest  that 
while  some  gain  others  lose,  and  not  a  few  are  ruined— if  capital, 
not  getting  adequate  interest,  flows  elsewhere  and  leaves  labour 
unemployed ;  then  it  is  manifest  that  the  choice  for  the  artisan 
under  such  conditions,  lies  between  diminished  amount  of  work  or 
diminished  rate  of  payment  for  it.  Moreover,  for  kindred  reasons 
these  local  burdens  raise  the  costs  of  the  things  he  consumes.  The 
charges  made  by  distributors  are,  on  the  average,  determined 
by  the  current  rates  of  interest  on  capital  used  in  distributing 
businesses  ;  and  the  extra  costs  of  carrying  on  such  businesses  have 
to  be  paid  for  by  extra  prices.  So  that  as  in  the  past  the  rural 
worker  lost  in  one  way  what  he  gained  in  another,  so  in  the  present 
does  the  urban  worker :  there  being,  too,  in  both  cases,  the  loss 
entailed  on  him  by  the  cost  of  administration  and  the  waste  ac¬ 
companying  it. 

But  what  has  all  this  to  do  with  1  the  coming  slavery  ’  ?  ”  will 
perhaps  be  asked.  Nothing  directly,  but  a  good  deal  indirectly,  as 
we  shall  see  after  yet  another  preliminary  section. 

It  is  said  that  when  railways  were  first  opened  in  Spain,  peasants 
standing  on  the  tracks  were  not  unfrequently  run  over ;  and  that 
the  blame  fell  on  the  engine-drivers  for  not  stopping:  rural  ex¬ 
periences  having  yielded  no  conception  of  the  momentum  of  a  large 
mass  moving  at  a  high  velocity. 

The  incident  is  recalled  to  me  on  contemplating  the  ideas  of  the 
so-called  practical  politician,  into  whose  mind  there  enters  no 
thought  of  such  a  thing  as  political  momentum,  still  less  of  a  political 
momentum  which,  instead  of  diminishing  or  remaining  constant, 
increases.  The  theory  on  which  he  daily  proceeds  is  that  the 
change  caused  by  his  measure  will  stop  where  he  intends  it  to 


/ 


\ 


24  THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 

stop.  He  contemplates  intently  the  things  his  act  will  achieve,  but 
thinks  little  of  the  remoter  issues  of  the  movement  his  act  sets  up, 
and  still  less  its  collateral  issues.  WLen,  in  war-time,  a  food  for 
powder  ”  was  to  be  provided  by  encouraging  population — when  Mr. 
Pitt  said,  “  Let  us  make  relief  in  cases  where  there  are  a  number  of 
children  a  matter  of  right  and  honour,  instead  of  a  ground  for 
opprobrium  and  contempt ;  it  was  not  expected  that  the  poor-rates 
would  be  quadrupled  in  fifty  years,  that  women  with  many  bastards 
would  be  preferred  as  wives  to  modest  women,  because  of  their 
incomes  from  the  parish,  and  that  hosts  of  ratepayers  would  be 
pulled  down  into  the  ranks  of  pauperism.  Legislators  who  in  1833 
voted  £20,000  a  year  to  aid  in  building  school-houses,  never  sup¬ 
posed  that  the  step  they  then  took  would  lead  to  forced  contribu¬ 
tions,  local  and  general,  now  amounting  to  £6,000,000;  they  did 
not  intend  to  establish  the  principle  that  A  should  be  made  re¬ 
sponsible  for  educating  B’s  offspring;  they  did  not  dream  of  a 
compulsion  which  would  deprive  poor  widows  of  the  help  of  their 
elder  children  ;  and  still  less  did  they  dream  that  their  successors, 
by  requiring  impoverished  parents  to  apply  to  Boards  of  Guardians 
to  pay  the  fees  which  School  Boards  would  not  remit,  would  initiate 
a  habit  of  applying  to  Boards  of  Guardians  and  so  cause  pauperiza¬ 
tion.*!'  Neither  did  those  who  in  1834  passed  an  Act  regulating  the 
labour  of  women  and  children  in  certain  factories,  imagine  that  the 
system  they  were  beginning  would  end  in  the  restriction  and  in¬ 
spection  oi  labour  in  all  kinds  of  producing  establishments  where 
more  than  fifty  people  are  employed ;  nor  did  they  conceive  that 
the  inspection  provided  would  grow  to  the  extent  of  requiring  that 
before  a  “young  person”  is  employed  in  a  factory,  authority  must 
be  grven  by  a  certifying  surgeon,  who,  by  personal  examination  (to 
which  no  limit  is  placed)  has  satisfied  himself  that  there  is  no  in¬ 
capacitating  disease  or  bodily  infirmity :  his  verdict  determining 
whether  the  “  young  person  ”  shall  earn  wages  or  not.  +  Even  less, 
as  1  say,  does  the  politician  who  plumes  himself  on  the  practical¬ 
ness  of  his  aims,  conceive  the  indirect  results  which  will  follow 
the  direct  results  of  his  measures.  Thus,  to  take  a  case  connected 
with  one  named  above,  it  was  not  intended  through  the  system  of 
“  payment  by  results,”  to  do  anything  more  than  give  teachers  an 

*  Hansard’s  Parliamentary  History ,  32,  p.  710. 

f  Fortnightly  Review ,  January,  1884,  p.  17. 

X  Factories  and  Workshops  Act,  41  and  42  Yic.  cap.  16. 


THE  COMING  SLAVERY. 


25 


£  «  n0t  Snpp0sed  that  in  ™“e™us  cases 

their  health  would  give  way  under  the  stimulus;  it  was  not 

expected  hat  they  would  he  led  to  adopt  a  cramming  system  and 

to  put  undue  pressure  on  dull  and  weak  children,  often  to  their 

great  mjury;  it ,  was  not  foreseen  that  in  many  cases  a  bodily  en- 

feeblement  would  he  caused  which  no  amount  of  grammar  and 

geography  can  compensate  for.  The  licensing  of  public-houses 

was  simply  for  maintaining  public  order :  those  who  devised  it 

nowerfurgmefl  '  W°U'd  reSuIt  “  -gaumed  Merest 

powerfully  influencing  elections  in  an  unwholesome  way.  Nor 

did  it  occur  to  the  “  practical  ”  politicians  who  provided"  a  com- 

pulsory  load-line  for  merchant  vessels,  that  the  pressure  of  ship. 

loadT  “te,1'eStS  WOU,d  hab>t«ally  cause  the  patting  of  the 

precedent  t  £  ^  ?hef  aad  *ba*  from  precedent  to 

precedent,  tending  ever  m  the  same  direction,  the  load-line  would 

I  ]enrn  tl,rite-+ni.  he  bftter  ^  °f  Sh‘pS  5  aS  from  &ood  authority 
I  learn  that  it  has  already  done.  Legislators  who,  some  forty 

sunnlvch  '  1  °f,Pariiame“t  compelled  railway-companies  to 
pp  y  eap  locomotion,  would  have  ridiculed  the  belief  had  it 

IZ.TTl’  that  eTe"y  thdr  Act  — ld  P-ish  the com- 

companTe,1  rr°J  ^  SUP1%  5  and  yet  this  was  tbe  resalt 
companies  which  began  to  carry  third-class  passengers  by  fast 

^  Sinr  penalty  to  the  amount  of  the  passenfer-dniy  was 
nflicted  on  them  for  every  third-class  passenger  so  carried7  To 
which  instance  concerning  railways,  add  a  far  more  striking  one 

Th!  ™  by,  C°mparinS  the  railwa7  Prides  of  England  and  pfance. 
The  law-makers  who  provided  for  the  ultimate  lapsing  of  French 

tTalllT  f  ri  tat6’  T6r  C°n0eired  the  P°ssibil%  ttat  inferior 
Welling  facilities  would  resnlt-did  not  foresee  that  reluctance 

o  depreciate  the  value  of  property  eventually  coming  to  the  State 

thTahnegatlVf  the  authorization  of  competing  lines,  and  that  in’ 
abTCe  °f,COmpetin^  Hnes  locomotion  would  be  relatively 
costly,  slow  and  infrequent ;  for,  as  Sir  Thomas  Earrer  has  lately 

'  PreTh  England  haS  Sreat  advantages  over  the 

which  his^  “  th\econom-v>  swiftness,  and  frequency  with 
winch  his  journeys  can  be  made.  * 

repeBatedthoee“PrTti0aI  ”  P°Utician  who>  “  aPi*e  of  such  experiences 
repeated  generation  after  generation,  goes  on  thinking  only  of 

remoteastilirmUltS’  nat™Uy  never  thinks  of  results  still  more 
remote,  still  more  general,  and  still  more  important  than  those  just 


26 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


exemplified.  To  repeat  the  metaphor  used  above — he  never  asks 
whether  the  political  momentum  set  up  by  his  measure,  in  some 
cases  decreasing  but  in  other  cases  greatly  increasing,  will  or  will 
not  have  the  same  general  direction  with  other  like  momenta ;  and 
whether  it  may  not  join  them  in  presently  producing  an  aggregate 
energy  working  changes  never  thought  of.  Dwelling  only  on  the 
effects  of  his  particular  stream  of  legislation,  and  not  observing 
how  other  such  streams  already  existing,  and  still  other  streams 
which  will  follow  his  initiative,  pursue  the  same  average  course, 
it  never  occurs  to  him  that  they  may  presently  unite  into  a  volu¬ 
minous  flood  utterly  changing  the  face  of  things.  Or  to  leave 
figures  for  a  more  literal  statement,  he  is  unconscious  of  the  truth 
that  he  is  helping  to  form  a  certain  type  of  social  organization, 
and  that  kindred  measures,  effecting  kindred  changes  of  organiza¬ 
tion,  tend  with  ever-increasing  force  to  make  that  type  general ; 
until,  passing  a  certain  point,  the  proclivity  towards  it  becomes 
irresistible.  Just  as  each  society  aims  when  possible  to  produce  in 
other  societies  a  structure  akin  to  its  own — just  as  among  the 
Greeks,  the  Spartans  and  the  Athenians  struggled  to  spread  their 
respective  political  institutions,  or  as,  at  the  time  of  the  French 
Devolution,  the  European  absolute  monarchies  aimed  to  re-establish 
absolute  monarchy  in  France  while  the  Republic  encouraged  the 
formation  of  other  republics ;  so  within  every  society,  each  species 
of  structure  tends  to  propagate  itself.  Just  as  the  system  of 
voluntary  co-operation  by  companies,  associations,  unions,  to 
achieve  business  ends  and  other  ends,  spreads  throughout  a  com¬ 
munity  ;  so  does  the  antagonistic  system  of  compulsory  co-opera¬ 
tion  under  State-agencies  spread;  and  the  larger  becomes  its 
extension  the  more  power  of  spreading  it  gets.  The  question  of 
questions  for  the  politician  should  ever  be — “  What  type  of  social 
structure  am  I  tending  to  produce  ?  ”  But  this  is  a  question  he 
never  entertains. 

Here  we  will  entertain  it  for  him.  Let  us  now  observe  the 
general  course  of  recent  changes,  with  the  accompanying  current 
of  ideas,  and  see  whither  they  are  carrying  us. 

The  blank  form  of  a  question  daily  asked  is — “  We  have  already 
done  this  ;  why  should  we  not  do  that  ?  ”  And  the  regard  for  pre¬ 
cedent  suggested  by  it,  is  ever  pushing  on  regulative  legislation. 
Having  had  brought  within  their  sphere  of  operation  more  and 


THE  COMING  SLAVERY. 


27 


more  numerous  businesses,  the  Acts  restricting  hours  of  employ¬ 
ment  and  dictating  the  treatment  of  workers  are  now  to  be  made 
applicable  to  shops.  From  inspecting  lodging-houses  to  limit  the 
numbers  of  occupants  and  enforce  sanitary  conditions,  we  have 
passed  to  inspecting  all  houses  below  a  certain  rent  in  which  there 
are  members  of  more  than  one  family,  and  are  now  passing  to  a 
kindred  inspection  of  all  small  houses  *  The  buying  and  working 
of  telegraphs  by  the  State  is  made  a  reason  for  urging  that  the 
State  should  buy  and  work  the  railways.  Supplying  children  with 
food  for  their  minds  by  public  agency  is  being  followed  in  some 
cases  by  supplying  food  for  their  bodies;  and  after  the  practice 
has  been  made  gradually  more  general,  we  may  anticipate  that  the 
supply,  now  proposed  to  be  made  gratis  in  the  one  case,  will 
eventually  be  proposed  to  be  made  gratis  in  the  other:  the  argu¬ 
ment  that  good  bodies  as  well  as  good  minds  are  needful  to  make 
good  citizens,  being  logically  urged  as  a  reason  for  the  extension. f 
And  then,  avowedly  proceeding  on  the  precedents  furnished  by  the 
church,  the  school,  and  the  reading-room,  all  publicly  provided,  it 
is  contended  that  “pleasure,  in  the  sense  it  is  now  generally 

admitted,  needs  legislating  for  and  organizing  at  least  as  much 
as  work.”J 

Not  precedent  only  prompts  this  spread,  but  also  the  necessity 
which  arises  for  supplementing  ineffective  measures,  and  for 
dealing  with  the  artificial  evils  continually  caused.  Failure  does 
not  destroy  faith  in  the  agencies  employed,  but  merely  suggests 
more  stringent  use  of  such  agencies  or  wider  ramifications  of  them. 
Laws  to  check  intemperance,  beginning  in  early  times  and  coming 
down  to  our  own  times,  when  further  restraints  on  the  sale  of 
intoxicating  liquors  occupy  night3  every  session,  not  having  done 
what  was  expected,  there  come  demands  for  more  thorough-going 
laws,  locally  preventing  the  sale  altogether;  and  here,  as  in 
America,  these  will  doubtless  be  followed  by  demands  that  pre¬ 
vention  shall  be  made  universal.  All  the  many  appliances  for 

#  See  letter  of  Local  Government  Board,  Times ,  January  2,  1884. 

t  Verification  comes  more  promptly  than  I  expected.  This  article  has  been 
standing  in  type  since  January  30,  and  in  the  interval,  namely  on  March  13 
[the  article  was  published  on  April  1],  the  London  School  Board  resolved  to 
aPP!j  authority  to  use  local  charitable  funds  for  supplying  gratis  meals 
and  clothing  to  indigent  children.  Presently  the  definition  of  “indigent”  will 
be  widened ;  more  children  will  be  included,  and  more  funds  asked  for. 

J  Fortnightly  Review,  January,  1884,  p.  21. 


28 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


“  stamping  out M  epidemic  diseases  not  having  succeeded  in 
preventing  outbreaks  of  small-pox,  fevers,  and  the  like,  a  further 
remedy  is  applied  for  in  the  shape  of  police-power  to  search  houses 
for  diseased  persons,  and  authority  for  medical  officers  to  examine 
any  one  they  think  fit,  to  see  whether  he  or  she  is  suffering  from 
an  infectious  or  contagious  malady.  Habits  of  improvidence 
having  for  generations  been  cultivated  by  the  Poor-Law,  and  the 
improvident  enabled  to  multiply,  the  evils  produced  by  compulsory 
charity  are  now  proposed  to  be  met  by  compulsory  insurance. 

The  extension  of  this  policy,  causing  extension  of  corresponding 
ideas,  fosters  everywhere  the  tacit  assumption  that  Government 
should  step  in  whenever  anything  is  not  going  right.  “  Surely  you 
would  not  have  this  misery  continue  !  ”  exclaims  some  one,  if  you 
hint  a  demurrer  to  much  that  is ,  now  being  said  and  done. 
Observe  what  is  implied  by  this  exclamation.  It  takes  for  granted, 
first,  that  all  suffering  ought  to  be  prevented,  which  is  not  true : 
much  suffering  is  curative,  and  prevention  of  it  is  prevention  of  a 
remedy.  In  the  second  place,  it  takes  for  granted  that  every  evil 
can  be  removed :  the  truth  being  that  with  the  existing  defects  of 
human  nature,  many  evils  can  only  be  thrust  out  of  one  place  or 
form  into  another  place  or  form — often  being  increased  by  the 
change.  The  exclamation  also  implies  the  unhesitating  belief, 
here  especially  concerning  us,  that  evils  of  all  kinds  should  be  dealt 
with  by  the  State.  There  does  not  occur  the  inquiry  whether 
there  are  at  work  other  agencies  capable  of  dealing  with  evils,  and 
whether  the  evils  in  question  may  not  be  among  those  which  are 
best  dealt  with  by  these  other  agencies.  And  obviously,  the  more 
numerous  governmental  interventions  become,  the  more  confirmed 
does  this  habit  of  thought  grow,  and  the  more  loud  and  perpetual 
the  demands  for  intervention. 

Every  extension  of  the  regulative  policy  involves  an  addition  to 
the  regulative  agents — a  further  growth  of  officialism  and  an 
increasing  power  of  the  organization  formed  of  officials.  Take  a 
pair  of  scales  with  many  shot  in  the  one  and  a  few  in  the  other. 
Lift  shot  after  shot  out  of  the  loaded  scale  and  put  it  into  the 
unloaded  scale.  Presently  you  will  produce  a  balance ;  and  if  you 
go  on,  the  position  of  the  scales  will  be  reversed.  Suppose  the 
beam  to  be  unequally  divided,  and  let  the  lightly  loaded  scale  be  at 
the  end  of  a  very  long  arm ;  then  the  transfer  of  each  shot,  pro¬ 
ducing  a  much  greater  effect,  will  far  sooner  bring  about  a  change 


THE  COMING  SLAVERY. 


29 


of  position.  I  use  the  figure  to  illustrate  what  results  from  trans¬ 
ferring  one  individual  after  another  from  the  regulated  mass  of  the 
community  to  the  regulating  structures.  The  transfer  weakens 
the  one  and  strengthens  the  other  in  a  far  greater  degree  than  is 
implied  by  the  relative  change  of  numbers.  A  comparatively 
small  body  of  officials,  coherent,  having  common  interests,  and 
acting  under  central  authority,  has  an  immense  advantage  over  an 
incoherent  public  which  has  no  settled  policy,  and  can  be  brought 
to  act  unitedly  only  under  strong  provocation.  Hence  an  organiza¬ 
tion  of  officials,  once  passing  a  certain  stage  of  growth,  becomes 
less  and  less  resistible;  as  we  see  in  the  bureaucracies  of  the 
Continent. 

Hot  only  does  the  power  of  resistance  of  the  regulated  part- 
decrease  in  a  geometrical  ratio  as  the  regulating  part  increases,  but 
the  private  interests  of  many  in  the  regulated  part  itself,  make  the 
change  of  ratio  still  more  rapid.  In  every  circle  conversations  show 
that  now,  when  the  passing  of  competitive  examinations  renders 
them  eligible  for  the  public  service,  youths  are  being  educated  in 
such  ways  that  they  may  pass  them  and  get  employment  under 
Government.  One  consequence  is  that  men  who  might  otherwise 
reprobate  some  further  growth  of  officialism,  are  led  to  look  on  it 
with  tolerance,  if  not  favourably,  as  offering  possible  careers  for 
those  dependent  on  them  and  those  related  to  them.  Any  one 
who  remembers  the  numbers  of  upper-class  and  middle-class 
families  anxious  to  place  their  children,  will  see  that  no  small 
encouragement  to  the  spread  of  legislative  control  is  now  coming 
from  those  who,  but  for  the  personal  interests  thus  arising,  would 
be  hostile  to  it. 

This  pressing  desire  for  careers  is  enforced  by  the  preference  for 
careers  which  are  thought  respectable.  “  Even  if  his  salary  is 
small,  his  occupation  will  be  that  of  a  gentleman,”  thinks  the 
father,  who  wants  to  get  a  Government-clerkship  for  his  son.  And 
this  relative  dignity  of  State-servants  as  compared  with  those 
occupied  in  business,  increases  as  the.  administrative  organization 
becomes  a  larger  and  more  powerful  element  in  society,  and  tends 
more  and  more  to  fix  the  standard  of  honour.  The  prevalent 
ambition  with  a  young  Frenchman  is  to  get  some  small  official  post 
in  his  locality,  to  rise  thence  to  a  place  in  the  local  centre  of 
government,  and  finally  to  reach  some  head  office  in  Paris.  And 
in  Russia,  where  that  universality  of  State-regulation  which  charac- 


30 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


terizes  the  militant  type  of  society  has  been  carried  furthest,  we 
see  this  ambition  pushed  to  its  extreme.  Says  Mr.  Wallace, 
quoting  a  passage  from  a  play  : — “  All  men,  even  shopkeepers  and 
cobblers,  aim  at  becoming  officers,  and  the  man  who  has  passed  his 
whole  life  without  official  rank  seems  to  be  not  a  human  being.”* 

These  various  influences  working  from  above  downwards  meet 
with  an  increasing  response  of  expectations  and  solicitations  pro* 
ceeding  from  below  upwards.  The  hard-worked  and  over-burdened 
who  form  the  great  majority,  and  still  more  the  incapables  per¬ 
petually  helped  who  are  ever  led  to  look  for  more  help,  are  ready 
supporters  of  schemes  which  promise  them  this  or  the  other  benefit 
by  State  agency,  and  ready  believers  of  those  who  tell  them  that 
such  benefits  can  be  given,  and  ought  to  be  given.  They  listen 
with  eager  faith  to  all  builders  of  political  air-castles,  from  Oxford 
graduates  down  to  Irish  irreconcilables ;  and  every  additional 
tax-supported  appliance  for  their  welfare  raises  hopes  of  further 
ones.  Indeed  the  more  numerous  public  instrumentalities  be¬ 
come,  the  more  is  there  generated  in  citizens  the  notion  that 
everything  is  to  be  done  for  them,  and  nothing  by  them.  Each 
generation  is  made  less  familiar  with  the  attainment  of  desired 
ends  by  individual  actions  or  private  combinations,  and  more 
familiar  with  the  attainment  of  them  by  governmental  agencies ; 
until,  eventually,  governmental  agencies  come  to  be  thought  of 
as  the  only  available  agencies.  This  result  was  well  shown  in  the 
recent  Trades-Unions  Congress  at  Paris.  The  English  delegates, 
reporting  to  their  constituents,  said  that  between  themselves  and 
their  foreign  colleagues  “the  point  of  difference  was  the  extent  to 
which  the  State  should  be  asked  to  protect  labour  :  ”  reference 
being  thus  made  to  the  fact,  conspicuous  in  the  reports  of  the 
proceedings,  that  the  French  delegates  always  invoked  govern¬ 
mental  power  as  the  only  means  of  satisfying  their  wishes. 

The  diffusion  of  education  has  worked,  and  will  work  still  more, 
in  the  same  direction.  “  We  must  educate  our  masters,”  is  the 
well-known  saying  of  a  Liberal  who  opposed  the  last  extension  of 
the  franchise.  Yes,  if  the  education  were  worthy  to  be  so  called, 
and  were  relevant  to  the  political  enlightenment  needed,  much 
might  be  hoped  from  it.  But  knowing  rules  of  syntax,  being  able 
to  add  up  correctly,  having  geographical  information,  and  a 
memory  stocked  with  the  dates  of  kings’  accessions  and  generals’ 

*  Russia,  i.  422. 


THE  COMING  SLAVERY. 


O  1 

Ol 


victories,  no  more  implies  fitness  to  form  political  conclusions  than 
acquirement  of  skill  in  drawing  implies  expertness  in  telegraphing, 
or  than  ability  to  play  cricket  implies  proficiency  on  the  violin. 
“  Surely,”  rejoins  some  one,  “  facility  in  reading  opens  the  way  to 
political  knowledge.”  Doubtless ;  but  will  the  way  be  followed  ? 
Table-talk  proves  that  nine  out  of  ten  people  read  what  amuses 
them  or  interests  them  rather  than  what  instructs  them  ;  and 
that  the  last  thing  they  read  is  something  which  tells  them  disa¬ 
greeable  truths  or  dispels  groundless  hopes.  That  popular  edu¬ 
cation  results  in  an  extensive  reading  of  publications  which  foster 
pleasant  illusions  rather  than  of  those  which  insist  on  hard  reali¬ 
ties,  is  beyond  question.  Says  “  A  Mechanic,”  writing  in  the  Pall 
Mall  Gazette  of  December  3,  1883  : — 

“  Improved  education  instils  the  desire  for  culture — culture  instils  the 
desire  for  many  things  as  yet  quite  beyond  working  men’s  reach  ....  in 
the  furious  competition  to  which  the  present  age  is  given  up  they  are 
utterly  impossible  to  the  poorer  classes  ;  hence  they  are  discontented  with 
things  as  they  are,  and  the  more  educated  the  more  discontented.  Hence, 
too,  Mr.  Ruskin  and  Mr.  Morris  are  regarded  as  true  prophets  by  many 
of  us.” 

And  that  the  connexion  of  cause  ancl  effect  here  alleged  is  a  real 
one,  we  may  see  clearly  enough  in  the  present  state  of  Germany. 

Being  possessed  of  electoral  power,  as  are  now  the  mass  of  those 
who  are  thus  led  to  nurture  sanguine  anticipations  of  benefits  to  be 
obtained  by  social  reorganization,  it  results  that  whoever  seeks 
their  votes  must  at  least  refrain  from  exposing  their  mistaken 
beliefs ;  even  if  he  does  not  yield  to  the  temptation  to  express 
agreement  with  them.  Every  candidate  for  Parliament  is  prompted 
to  propose  or  support  some  new  piece  of  ad  captandum  legislation. 
Hay,  even  the  chiefs  of  parties — these  anxious  to  retain  office  and 
those  to  wrest  it  from  them — severally  aim  to  get  adherents  by 
outbidding  one  another.  Each  seeks  popularity  by  promising 
more  than  his  opponent  has  promised,  as  we  have  lately  seen.  And 
then,  as  divisions  in  Parliament  show  us,  the  traditional  loyalty 
to  leaders  overrides  questions  concerning  the  intrinsic  propriety  of 
proposed  measures.  Representatives  are  unconscientious  enough 
to  vote  for  Bills  which  they  believe  to  be  wrong  in  principle,  be¬ 
cause  party-needs  and  regard  for  the  next  election  demand  it.  And 
thus  a  vicious  policy  is  strengthened  even  by  those  who  see  its 
viciousness. 


32 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


Meanwhile  there  goes  on  out-of-doors  an  active  propaganda  to 
which  all  these  influences  are  ancillary.  Communistic  theories, 
partially  indorsed  by  one  Act  of  Parliament  after  another,  and 
tacitly  if  not  avowedly  favoured  by  numerous  public  men  seeking 
supporters,  are  being  advocated  more  and  more  vociferously  under 
one  or  other  form  by  popular  leaders,  and  urged  on  by  organized 
societies.  There  is  the  movement  for  land-nationalization  which, 
aiming  at  a  system  of  land-tenure  equitable  in  the  abstract,  is,  as  all 
the  world  knows,  pressed  by  Mr.  George  and  his  friends  with  avowed 
disregard  for  the  just  claims  of  existing  owners,  and  as  the  basis  of  a 
scheme  going  more  than  half-way  to  State-socialism.  And  then 
there  is  the  thorough-going  Democratic  Federation  of  Mr.  Hyndman 
and  his  adherents.  We  are  told  by  them  that  “  the  handful  of 
marauders  who  now  hold  possession  [of  the  land]  have  and  can 
have  no  right  save  brute  force  against  the  tens  of  millions  whom 
they  wrong.”  They  exclaim  against  “  the  shareholders  who  have 
been  allowed  to  lay  hands  upon  (!)  our  great  railway  communica¬ 
tions.”  They  condemn  “  above  all,  the  active  capitalist  class,  the 
loan-mongers,  the  farmers,  the  mine  exploiters,  the  contractors,  the 
middle-men,  the  factory-lord^ — these,  the  modern  slave  drivers’* 
who  exact  “  more  and  yet  more  surplus  value  out  of  the  wage- 
slaves  whom  they  employ.”  And  they  think  it  “  high  time  ”  that 
trade  should  be  “  removed  from  the  control  of  individual  greed.”* 
It  remains  to  point  out  that  the  tendencies  thus  variously 
displayed,  are  being  strengthened  by  press-advocacy,  daily  more 
pronounced.  Journalists,  always  chary  of  saying  that  which  is 
distasteful  to  their  readers,  are  some  of  them  going  with  the  stream 
and  adding  to  its  force.  Legislative  meddlings  which  they  would 
once  have  condemned  they  now  pass  in  silence,  if  they  do  not 
advocate  them ;  and  they  speak  of  laissez-faire  as  an  exploded 
doctrine.  “  People  are  no  longer  frightened  at  the  thought  of 
socialism,”  is  the  statement  which  meets  us  one  day.  On  another 
day,  a  town  which  does  not  adopt  the  Free  Libraries  Act  is  sneered 
at  as  being  alarmed  by  a  measure  so  moderately  communistic.  And 
then,  along  with  editorial  assertions  that  this  economic  evolution  is 
coming  and  must  be  accepted,  there  is  prominence  given  to  the 
contributions  of  its  advocates.  Meanwhile  those  who  regard  the 
recent  course  of  legislation  as  disastrous,  and  see  that  its  future 


#  Socialism  made  Plain.  Reeves,  185,  Fleet  Street. 


THE  COMING  SLAVERY. 


33 


course  is  likely  to  be  still  more  disastrous,  are  being  reduced  to 
silence  by  the  belief  that  it  is  useless  to  reason  with  people  in  a 
state  of  political  intoxication. 

See,  then,  the  many  concurrent  causes  which  threaten  continually 
to  accelerate  the  transformation  now  going  on.  There  is  that 
spread  of  regulation  caused  by  following  precedents,  which  become 
the  mqre  authoritative  the  further  the  policy  is  carried.  There  is 
that  increasing  need  for  administrative  compulsions  and  restraints, 
which  results  from  the  unforeseen  evils  and  shortcomings  of  pre¬ 
ceding  compulsions  and  restraints.  Moreover,  every  additional 
State-interference  strengthens  the  tacit  assumption  that  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  State  to  deal  with  all  evils  and  secure  all  benefits. 
Increasing  power  of  a  growing  administrative  organization  is 
accompanied  by  decreasing  power  of  the  rest  of  the  society  to  resist 
its  further  growth  and  control.  The  multiplication  of  careers 
opened  by  a  developing  bureaucracy,  tempts  members  of  the  classes 
regulated  by  it  to  favour  its  extension,  as  adding  to  the  chances  of 
safe  and  respectable  places  for  their  relatives.  The  people  at  large, 
led  to  look  on  benefits  received  through  public  agencies  as  gratis 
benefits,  have  their  hopes  continually  excited  by  the  prospects  of 
more.  A  spreading  education,  furthering  the  diffusion  of  pleasing 
errors  rather  than  of  stern  truths,  renders  such  hopes  both  stronger 
and  more  general.  Worse  still,  such  hopes  are  ministered  to  by 
candidates  for  public  choice,  to  augment  their  chances  of  success ; 
and  leading  statesmen,  in  pursuit  of  party  ends,  bid  for  popular 
favour  by  countenancing  them.  Getting  repeated  justifications 
from  new  laws  harmonizing  with  their  doctrines,  political 
enthusiasts  and  unwise  philanthropists  push  their  agitations  with 
growing  confidence  and  success.  Journalism,  ever  responsive  to 
popular  opinion,  daily  strengthens  it  by  giving  it  voice;  while 
counter-opinion,  more  and  more  discouraged,  finds  little  utterance. 

Thus  influences  of  various  kinds  conspire  to  increase  corporate 
action  and  decrease  individual  action.  And  the  change  is  being  on 
all  sides  aided  by  schemers,  each  of  whom  thinks  only  of  his  pet 
project  and  not  at  all  of  the  general  re-organization  which  his,  joined 
with  others  such,  are  working  out.  It  is  said  that  the  French 
Revolution  devoured  its  own  children.  Here  an  analogous  catas¬ 
trophe  seems  not  unlikely.  The  numerous  socialistic  changes 
made  by  Act  of  Parliament,  joined  with  the  numerous  others 
presently  to  be  made,  will  by-and-by  be  all  merged  in  State- 


34 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


Socialism — swallowed  in  the  vast  wave  which  they  have  little  by 
little  raised. 

‘‘But  why  is  this  change  described  as  ‘  the  coming  slavery’  ?  ” 
is  a  question  which  many  will  still  ask.  The  reply  is  simple.  All 
socialism  involves  slavery. 

What  is  essential  to  the  idea  of  a  slave  ?  We  primarily  think 
of  him  as  one  who  is  owned  by  another.  To  be  more  than  nominal, 
however,  the  ownership  must  be  shown  by  control  of  the  slave’s 
actions — a  control  which  is  habitually  for  the  benefit  of  the  con¬ 
troller.  That  which  fundamentally  distinguishes  the  slave  is  that  he 
labours  under  coercion  to  satisfy  another’s  desires.  The  relation 
admits  of  sundry  gradations.  Remembering  that  originally  the 
slave  is  a  prisoner  whose  life  is  at  the  mercy  of  his  captor,  it 
suffices  here  to  note  that  there  is  a  harsh  form  of  slavery  in  which, 
treated  as  an  animal,  he  has  to  expend  his  entire  effort  for  his 
owner’s  advantage.  Under  a  system  less  harsh,  though  occupied 
chiefly  in  working  for  his  owner,  he  is  allowed  a  short  time  in 
which  to  work  for  himself,  and  some  ground  on  which  to  grow 
extra  food.  A  further  amelioration  gives  him  power  to  sell  the 
produce  of  his  plot  and  keep  the  proceeds.  Then  we  come  to 
the  still  more  moderated  form  which  commonly  arises  where, 
having  been  a  free  man  working  on  his  own  land,  conquest  turns 
him  into  what  we  distinguish  as  a  serf ;  and  he  has  to  give  to  his 
owner  each  year  a  fixed  amount  of  labour  or  produce,  or  both : 
retaining  the  rest  himself.  Finally,  in  some  cases,  as  in  Russia 
until  recently,  he  is  allowed  to  leave  his  owner’s  estate  and  work 
or  trade  for  himself  elsewhere,  under  the  condition  that  he  shall 
pay  an  annual  sum.  What  is  it  which,  in  these  cases,  leads  us  to 
qualify  our  conception  of  the  slavery  as  more  or  less  severe  ? 
Evidently  the  greater  or  smaller  extent  to  which  effort  is  com¬ 
pulsorily  expended  for  the  benefit  of  another  instead  of  for  self¬ 
benefit.  If  all  the  slave’s  labour  is  for  his  owner  the  slavery  is 
heavy,  and  if  but  little  it  is  light.  Take  now  a  further  step. 
Suppose  an  owner  dies,  and  his  estate  with  its  slaves  comes  into 
the  hands  of  trustees  ;  or  suppose  the  estate  and  everything  on  it  to 
be  bought  by  a  company ;  is  the  condition  of  the  slave  any  the  better 
if  the  amount  of  his  compulsory  labour  remains  the  same  ?  Sup¬ 
pose  that  for  a  company  we  substitute  the  community;  does  it 
make  any  difference  to  the  slave  if  the  time  he  has  to  work  for 


THE  COMING  SLAVERY. 


35 


others  is  as  great,  and  the  time  left  for  himself  is  as  small,  as 
before  ?  The  essential  question  is— How  much  is  he  compelled  to 
labour  for  other  benefit  than  his  own,  and  how  much  can  he  labour 
for  his  own  benefit  ?  The  degree  of  his  slavery  varies  according 
to  the  ratio  between  that  which  he  is  forced  to  yield  up  and  that 
which  he  is  allowed  to  retain;  and  it  matters  not  whether  his 
master  is  a  single  person  or  a  society.  If,  without  option,  he  has 
to  labour  for  the  society,  and  receives  from  the  general  stock  such 
portion  as  the  society  awards  him,  he  becomes  a  slave  to  the 
society.  Socialistic  arrangements  necessitate  an  enslavement  of 
this  kind;  and  towards  such  an  enslavement  many  recent  mea¬ 
sures,  and  still  more  the  measures  advocated,  are  carrying  us. 
Let  us  observe,  first,  their  proximate  effects,  and  then  their 
ultimate  effects. 

The  policy  initiated  by  the  Industrial  Dwellings  Acts  admits  of 
development,  and  will  develop.  Where  municipal  bodies  turn 
house-builders,  they  inevitably  lower  the  values  of  houses  other¬ 
wise  built,  and  check  the  supply  of  more.  Every  dictation  re¬ 
specting  modes  of  building  and  conveniences  to  be  provided, 
diminishes  the  builder’s  profit,  and  prompts  him  to  use  his  capital 
where  the  profit  is  not  thus  diminished.  So,  too,  the  owner, 
already  finding  that  small  houses  entail  much  labour  and  many 
losses — already  subject  to  troubles  of  inspection  and  interference, 
and  to  consequent  costs,  and  having  his  property  daiiy  rendered  a 
more  undesirable  investment,  is  prompted  to  sell;  and  as  buyers 
are  for  like  reasons  deterred,  he  has  to  sell  at  a  loss.  And  now 
these  still-multiplying  regulations,  ending,  it  may  be,  as  Lord  Grey 
proposes,  in  one  requiring  the  owner  to  maintain  the  salubrity  of 
his  houses  by  evicting  dirty  tenants,  and  thus  adding  to  his  other 
responsibilities  that  of  inspector  of  nuisances,  must  further  prompt 
sales  and  further  deter  purchasers  :  so  necessitating  greater  depre¬ 
ciation.  What  must  happen  ?  The  multiplication  of  houses,  and 
especially  small  houses,  being  increasingly  checked,  there  must 
come  an  increasing  demand  upon  the  local  authority  to  make  up 
for  the  deficient  supply.  More  and  more  the  municipal  or  kindred 
body  will  have  to  build  houses,  or  to  purchase  houses  rendered 
unsaleable  to  private  persons  in  the  way  shown  houses  which, 
greatly  lowered  in  value  as  they  must  become,  it  will,  in  many 
cases,  pay  to  buy  rather  than  to  build  new  ones.  Nay,  this  process 
must  work  in  a  double  way ;  since  every  entailed  increase  of  local 


36 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


taxation  still  further  depreciates  property  *  And  then,  when  in 
towns  this  process  has  gone  so  far  as  to  make  the  local  authority 
the  chief  owner  of  houses,  there  will  be  a  good  precedent  for 
publicly  providing  houses  for  the  rural  population,  as  proposed  in 
the  Radical  programme,!  and  as  urged  by  the  Democratic  Federa¬ 
tion  ;  which  insists  on  “  the  compulsory  construction  of  healthy 
artisans’  and  agricultural  labourers’  dwellings  in  proportion  to  the 
population.”  Manifestly,  the  tendency  of  that  which  has  been 
done,  is  being  done,  and  is  presently  to  be  done,  is  to  approach  the 
socialistic  ideal  in  which  the  community  is  sole  house-proprietor. 

Such,  too,  must  be  the  effect  of  the  daily-growing  policy  on 
the  tenure  and  utilization  of  the  land.  More  numerous  public 
benefits,  to  be  achieved  by  more  numerous  public  agencies,  at 
the  cost  of  augmented  public  burdens,  must  increasingly  deduct 
from  the  returns  on  land;  until,  as  the  depreciation  in  value 
becomes  greater  and  greater,  the  resistance  to  change  of  tenure 
becomes  less  and  less.  Already,  as  every  one  knows,  there  is 
in  many  places  difficulty  in  obtaining  tenants,  even  at  greatly 
reduced  rents;  and  land  of  inferior  fertility  in  some  cases  lies 
idle,  or  when  farmed  by  the  owner  is  often  farmed  at  a 
loss.  Clearly  the  profit  on  capital  invested  in  land  is  not  such 
that  taxes,  local  and  general,  can  be  greatly  raised  to  support 
extended  public  administrations,  without  an  absorption  of  it 
which  will  prompt  owners  to  sell,  and  make  the  best  of  what 
reduced  price  they  can  get  by  emigrating  and  buying  land  not 
subject  to  heavy  burdens ;  as,  indeed,  some  are  now  doing.  This 
process,  carried  far,  must  have  the  result  of  throwing  inferior  land 
out  of  cultivation ;  after  which  there  will  be  raised  more  generally 


,  „If  an^  tlnnke  8Uch  fears  are  groundless,  let  him  contemplate  the  fact 
at  from  1867-8  to  1880-1,  our  annual  local  expenditure  for  the  United 
Kingdom  has  grown  from  £36,132,834  to  £63,276,283 ;  and  that  during  the 
same  13  years,  the  municipal  expenditure  in  England  and  Wales  alone,  has 
grown  from  13  millions  to  30  millions  a  year!  How  the  increase  of  public 
urdens  will  join  with  other  causes  in  bringing  about  public  ownership,  is  shown 
by  a  statement  made  by  Mr.  W.  Rathbone,  M.P.,  to  which  my  attention  has 
een  diawn  since  the  above  paragraph  was  in  type.  He  says,  “within  my  own 
experience,  local  taxation  in  New  York  has  risen  from  12*.  6d.  per  cent,  to 
12*.  6d.  per  cent,  on  the  capital  of  its  citizens— a  charge  which  would  more 

than  absorb  the  whole  income  of  an  average  English  landlord.”— Nineteenth 
Century ,  February,  1883. 

f  Fortnightly  Review ,  November,  1883,  pp.  619-20. 


THE  COMING  SLAVERY. 


37 


the  demand  made  by  Mr.  Arch,  who,  addressing  the  Radical 
Association  of  Brighton  lately,  and  contending  that  existing  landlords 
do  not  make  their  land  adequately  productive  for  the  public  benefit, 
said  “  he  should  like  the  present  Government  to  pass  a  Compulsory 
Cultivation  Bill:”  an  applauded  proposal  which  he  justified  by 
‘instancing  compulsory  vaccination  (thus  illustrating  the  influence 
of  precedent).  And  this  demand  will  be  pressed,  not  only  by  the 
need  for  making  the  land  productive,  but  also  by  the  need  for 
employing  the  rural  population.  After  the  Government  has 
extended  the  practice  of  hiring  the  unemployed  to  work  on  deserted 
lands,  or  lands  acquired  at  nominal  prices,  there  will  be  reached  a 
stage  whence  there  is  but  a  small  further  step  to  that  arrangement 
which,  in  the  programme  of  the  Democratic  Federation,  is  to  follow 
nationalization  of  the  land— the  “  organization  of  agricultural  and 
industrial  armies  under  State  control  on  co-operative  principles. 

To  one  who  doubts  whether  such  a  revolution  may  be  so  reached, 
facts  may  be  cited  showing  its  likelihood.  In  Gaul,  during  the  decline 
of  the  Roman  Empire,  “  so  numerous  were  the  receivers  ill  com¬ 
parison  with  the  payers,  and  so  enormous  the  weight  of  taxation,  that 
the  labourer  broke  down,  the  plains  became  deserts,  and  woods  grew 
where  the  plough  had  been.”*  In  like  manner,  when  the  French 
Revolution  was  approaching,  the  public  burdens  had  become  such, 
that  many  farms  remained  uncultivated  and  many  were  deserted  : 
one  quarter  of  the  soil  was  absolutely  lying  waste ;  and  in  some 
provinces  one-half  was  in  heath. t  Nor  have  we  been  without 
incidents  of  a  kindred  nature  at  home.  Besides  the  facts  that  under 
the  old  Poor  Law  the  rates  had  in  some  parishes  risen  to  half  the 
rental,  and  that  in  various  places  farms  were  lying  idle,  there  is 
the  fact  that  in  one  case  the  rates  had  absorbed  the  whole  proceeds 

of  the  soil. 

At  Cholesbury,  in  Buckinghamshire,  in  1832,  the  poor-rate  “  suddenly 
ceased  in  consequence  of  the  impossibility  to  continue  its  collection,  the 
landlords  having  given  up  their  rents,  the  farmers  their  tenancies,  and  the 
clergyman  his  glebe  and  his  tithes.  The  clergyman,  Mr.  Jeston,  states  that 
in  October,  1832,  the  parish  officers  threw  up  their  books,  and  the  poor 
assembled  in  a  body  before  his  door  while  he  was  in  bed,  asking  for  advice 
and  food.  Partly  from  his  own  small  means,  partly  from  the  charity  of 

*  Lactant.  De  3f.  Persecute  cc.  7,  23. 

f  Taine,  L'Ancien  Regime,  pp.  337-8  (in  the  English  Translation). 


38 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


neighbours,  and  partly  by  rates  in  aid,  imposed  on  the  neighbouring 
parishes,  they  were  for  some  time  supported.”* 

-A_nd  the  Commissioners  add  that  **  the  benevolent  rector  recommends 
that  the  whole  of  the  land  should  be  divided  among  the  able-bodied 
paupers  :  hoping  that  after  help  afforded  for  two  years,  they  might 
be  able  to  maintain  themselves.  These  facts,  giving  colour  to  the 
prophecy  made  in  Parliament  that  continuance  of  the  old  Poor  Law 
for  another  thirty  years  would  throw  the  land  out  of  cultivation, 
clearly  show  that  increase  of  public  burdens  may  end  in  forced 
cultivation  under  public  control. 

Then,  again,  comes  State-ownership  of  railways.  Already  this 
exists  to  a  large  extent  on  the  Continent.  Already  we  have  had  here 
a  few  years  ago  loud  advocacy  of  it.  And  now  the  cry,  which  was 
raised  by  sundry  politicians  and  publicists,  is  taken  up  afresh  by  the 
Democratic  Federation;  which  proposes  “State-appropriation  of 
railways,  with  or  without  compensation.”  Evidently,  pressure 
from  above  joined  by  pressure  from  below,  is  likely  to  effect  this 
change  dictated  by  the  policy  everywhere  spreading ;  and  with  it 
must  come  many  attendant  changes.  For  railway-proprietors,  at 
first  owners  and  workers  of  railways  only,  have  become  masters  of 
numerous  businesses  directly  or  indirectly  connected  with  railways ; 
and  these  will  have  to  be  purchased  by  Government  when  the  rail¬ 
ways  are  purchased.  Already  exclusive  letter-carrier,  exclusive 
transmitter  of  telegrams,  and  on  the  way  to  become  exclusive 
carriei  of  parcels,  the  State  will  not  only  be  exclusive  carrier  of 
passengers,  goods,  and  minerals,  but  will  add  to  its  present 
various  trades  many  other  trades.  Even  now,  besides  erecting  its 
naval  and  military  establishments  and  building  harbours,  docks, 
breakwaters,  &c.,  it  does  the  work  of  shipbuilder,  cannon-founder, 
small-arms  maker,  manufacturer  of  ammunition,  army-clothier  and 
bootmaker;  and  when  the  railways  have  been  appropriated  “with  or 
without  compensation,”  as  the  Democratic  Federationists  say,  it  will 
have  to  become  locomotive-engine-builder,  carriage-maker,  tarpaulin 
and  grease  manufacturer,  passenger- vessel  owner,  coal-miner,  stone- 
quarrier,  omnibus  propietor,  &c.  Meanwhile  its  local  lieutenants,  the 
municipal  governments,  already  in  many  places  suppliers  of  water, 
gas-makers,  owners  and  workers  of  tramways,  proprietors  of  baths* 
will  doubtless  have  undertaken  various  other  businesses.  And  when 

*  Report  of  Commissioners  for  Inquiry  into  the  Administration  and  Practical 
Operation  of  the  Poor  Laws ,  p.  37.  February  20,  1834. 


THE  COMING  SLAVERY. 


39 


the  State,  directly  or  by  proxy,  has  thus  come  into  possession  of,  or 
has  established,  numerous  concerns  for  wholesale  production  and  for 
wholesale  distribution,  there  will  be  good  precedents  for  extendiug 
its  function  to  retail  distribution  :  following  such  an  example,  say, 
as  is  offered  by  the  French  Government,  which  has  long  been  a  retail 

tobacconist. 

Evidently  then,  the  changes  made,  the  changes  in  progress,  and 
the  changes  urged,  will  carry  us  not  only  towards  State- ownershi  . 
of  land  and  dwellings  and  means  of  communication,  all  to  be  adminis¬ 
tered  and  worked  by  State-agents,  but  towards  State-usurpation  of 
all  industries  :  the  private  forms  of  which,  disadvantaged  more  and 
more  in  competition  with  the  State,  which  can  arrange  everything 
for  its  own  convenience,  will  more  and  more  die  away ;  just  as  many 
voluntary  schools  have,  in  presence  of  Board-schools.  And  so  will 
be  brought  about  the  desired  ideal  of  the  socialists. 

And  now  when  there  has  been  compassed  this  desired  ideal,  which 
«  practical  ”  politicians  are  helping  socialists  to  reach,  and  which  is 
so  tempting  on  that  bright  side  which  socialists  contemplate,  what 
must  be  the  accompanying  shady  side  which  they  do  not  con¬ 
template  ?  It  is  a  matter  of  common  remark,  often  made  when  a 
marriage  is  impending,  that  those  possessed  by  strong  hopes  habi¬ 
tually  dwell  on  the  promised  pleasures  and  think  nothing  of  the 
accompanying  pains.  A  further  exemplification  of  this  truth  is 
supplied  by  these  political  enthusiasts  and  fanatical  revolutionists. 
Impressed  with  the  miseries  existing  under  our  present  social 
arrangements,  and  not  regarding  these  miseries  as  caused  by  the 
ill-working  of  a  human  nature  but  partially  adapted  to  the  social 
state,  they  imagine  them  to  be  forthwith  curable  by  this  or  that  re¬ 
arrangement.  Yet,  even  did  their  plans  succeed  it  could  only  be 
by  substituting  one  kind  of  evil  for  another.  A  little  deliberate 
thought  would  show  that  under  their  proposed  arrangements,  their 
liberties  must  be  surrendered  in  proportion  as  their  material  wel¬ 
fares  were  cared  for. 

For  no  form  of  co-operation,  small  or  great,  can  be  carried  on 
without  regulation,  and  an  implied  submission  to  the  regulating 
agencies.  Even  one  of  their  own  organizations  for  effecting  social 
changes  yields  them  proof.  It  is  compelled  to  have  its  councils,  its 
local  and  general  officers,  its  authoritative  leaders,  who  must  be 
obeyed  under  penalty  of  confusion  and  failure.  And  the  experience 


40 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


of  those  who  are  loudest  in  their  advocacy  of  a  new  social  order 
under  the  paternal  control  of  a  Government,  shows  that  even  in 
private  voluntarily-formed  societies,  the  power  of  the  regulative 
organization  becomes  great,  if  not  irresistible  :  often,  indeed,  causing 
grumbling  and  restiveness  among  those  controlled.  Trades  Unions’ 
which  carry  on  a  kind  of  industrial  war  in  defence  of  workers’  in¬ 
terests  versus  employers’  interests,  find  that  subordination  almost 
military  in  its  strictness  is  needful  to  secure  efficient  action ;  for 
divided  councils  prove  fatal  to  success.  And  even  in  bodies  of  co- 
operators,  formed  for  carrying  on  manufacturing  or  distributing 
businesses,  and  not  needing  that  obedience  to  leaders  which  is 
required  where  the  aims  are  offensive  or  defensive,  it  is  still 
found  that  the  administrative  agency  gains  such  supremacy  that 
there  arise  complaints  about  “the  tyranny  of  organization.”  Judge 
then  what  must  happen  when,  instead  of  relatively  small  combina¬ 
tions,  to  which  men  may  belong  or  not  as  they  please,  we  have 
a  national  combination  in  which  each  citizen  finds  himself  incor¬ 
porated,  and  from  which  he  cannot  separate  himself  without  leaving 
the  country.  Judge  what  must  under  such  conditions  become  the 
despotism  of  a  graduated  and  centralized  officialism,  holding  in  its 
hands  the  resources  of  the  community,  and  having  behind  it  what¬ 
ever  amount  of  force  it  finds  requisite  to  carry  out  its  decrees  and 
maintain  what  it  calls  order.  Well  may  Prince  Bismarck  display 
leanings  towards  State-socialism. 

And  then  after  recognizing,  as  they  must  if  they  think  out  their 
scheme,  the  power  possessed  by  the  regulative  agency  in  the  new 
social  system  so  temptingly  pictured,  let  its  advocates  ask  them¬ 
selves  to  what  end  this  power  must  be  used.  Not  dwelling  exclu¬ 
sively,  as  they  habitually  do,  on  the  material  well-being  and  the 
mental  gratifications  to  be  provided  for  them  by  a  beneficent 
administration,  let  them  dwell  a  little  on  the  price  to  be  paid.  The 
officials  cannot  create  the  needful  supplies  :  they  can  but  distribute 
among  individuals  that  which  the  individuals  have  joined  to  pro¬ 
duce.  If  the  public  agency  is  required  to  provide  for  them,  it  must 
reciprocally  require  them  to  furnish  the  means.  There  cannot  be, 
as  under  our  existing  system,  agreement  between  employer  and 
employed — this  the  scheme  excludes.  There  must  in  place  of  it 
be  command  by  local  authorities  over  workers,  and  acceptance  by  the 
workers  of  that  which  the  authorities  assign  to  them.  And  this,  in¬ 
deed,  is  the  arrangement  distinctly,  but  as  it  would  seem  inadvertently, 


THE  COMING  SLAVERY. 


41 


pointed  to  by  the  members  of  the  Democratic  Federation.  For 
they  propose  that  production  should  be  carried  on  by  “  agricultural 
and  industrial  armies  under  State-control :  ”  apparently  not  re¬ 
membering  that  armies  pre-suppose  grades  of  officers,  by  whom 
obedience  would  have  to  be  insisted  upon  ;  since  otherwise  neither 
order  nor  efficient  work  could  be  ensured.  So  that  each  would 
stand  toward  the  governing  agency  in  the  relation  of  slave  to 
master. 

“  But  the  governing  agency  wonld  be  a  master  which  he  and 
others  made  and  kept  constantly  in  check  ;  and  one  which  therefore 
would  not  control  him  or  others  more  than  was  needful  for  the 
benefit  of  each  and  all.” 

To  which  reply  the  first  rejoinder  is  that,  even  if  so,  each 
member  of  the  community  as  an  individual  would  be  a  slave  to  the 
community  as  a  whole.  Such  a  relation  has  habitually  existed  in 
militant  communities,  even  under  quasi-popular  forms  of  govern¬ 
ment.  In  ancient  Greece  the  accepted  principle  was  that  the 
citizen  belonged  neither  to  himself  nor  to  his  family,  but  belonged 
to  his  city — the  city  being  with  the  Greek  equivalent  to  the  com¬ 
munity.  And  this  doctrine,  proper  to  a  state  of  constant  warfare, 
is  a  doctrine  which  socialism  unawares  re-introduces  into  a  state 
intended  to  be  purely  industrial.  The  services  of  each  will  belong 
to  the  aggregate  of  all ;  and  for  these  services,  such  returns  will  be 
given  as  the  authorities  think  proper.  So  that  even  if  the  adminis¬ 
tration  is  of  the  beneficent  kind  intended  to  be  secured,  slavery, 
however  mild,  must  be  the  outcome  of  the  arrangement. 

A  second  rejoinder  is  that  the  administration  will  presently 
become  not  of  the  intended  kind,  and  that  the  slavery  will  not  be 
mild.  The  socialist  speculation  is  vitiated  by  an  assumption  like 
that  which  vitiates  the  speculations  of  the  “practical”  politician. 
It  is  assumed  that  officialism  will  work  as  it  is  intended  to  work, 
which  it  never  does.  The  machinery  of  Communism,  like  existing 
social  machinery,  has  to  be  framed  out  of  existing  human  nature  ; 
and  the  defects  of  existing  human  nature  will  generate  in  the  one 
the  same  evils  as  in  the  other.  The  love  of  power,  the  selfishness, 
the  injustice,  the  untruthfulness,  which  often  in  comparatively 
short  times  bring  private  organisations  to  disaster,  will  inevitably, 
where  their  effects  accumulate  from  generation  to  generation,  work 
evils  far  greater  and  less  remediable  ;  since,  vast  and  complex  and 
possessed  of  all  the  resources,  the  administrative  organization  once 
4 


42 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


developed  and  consolidated,  must  become  irresistible.  And  if  there 
needs  proof  that  the  periodic  exercise  of  electoral  power  would  fail 
to  prevent  this,  it  suffices  to  instance  the  French  Government, 
which,  purely  popular  in  origin,  and  subject  at  short  intervals  to 
popular  judgment,  nevertheless  tramples  on  the  freedom  of  citizens 
to  an  extent  which  the  English  delegates  to  the  late  Trades  Unions 
Congress  say  “  is  a  disgrace  to,  and  an  anomaly  in,  a  Republican 
nation.” 

The  final  result  would  be  a  revival  of  despotism.  A  disciplined 
army  of  civil  officials,  like  an  army  of  military  officials,  gives 
supreme  power  to  its  head — a  power  which  has  often  led  to  usurpa¬ 
tion,  as  in  mediaeval  Europe  and  still  more  in  Japan — nay,  has  thus 
so  led  among  our  neighbours,  within  our  own  times.  The  recent 
confessions  of  M.  de  Maupas  have  shown  how  readily  a  constitu¬ 
tional  head,  elected  and  trusted  by  the  whole  people,  may,  with  the 
aid  of  a  few  unscrupulous  confederates,  paralyze  the  representative 
body  and  make  himself  autocrat.  That  those  who  rose  to  power 
in  a  socialistic  organization  would  not  scruple  to  carry  out  their 
aims  at  all  costs,  we  have  good  reason  for  concluding.  When  we 
find  that  shareholders  who,  sometimes  gaining  but  often  losing,  have 
made  that  railway-system  by  which  national  prosperity  has  been  so 
greatly  increased,  are  spoken  of  by  the  council  of  the  Democratic 
Federation  as  having  “laid  hands”  on  the  means  of  communica¬ 
tion,  we  may  infer  that  those  who  directed  a  socialistic  administration 
might  interpret  with  extreme  perversity  the  claims  of  individuals  and 
classes  under  their  control.  And  when,  further,  we  find  members 
of  this  same  council  urging  that  the  State  should  take  possession 
of  the  railways,  “  with  or  without  compensation,”  we  may  suspect 
that  the  heads  of  the  ideal  society  desired,  would  be  but  little 
deterred  by  considerations  of  equity  from  pursuing  whatever  policy 
they  thought  needful:  a  policy  which  would  always  be  one  identi¬ 
fied  with  their  own  supremacy.  It  would  need  but  a  war  with  an 
adjacent  society,  or  some  internal  discontent  demanding  forcible 
suppression,  to  at  once  transform  a  socialistic  administration  into  a 
grinding  tyranny  like  that  of  ancient  Peru ;  under  which  the  mass 
of  the  people,  controlled  by  grades  of  officials,  and  leading  lives 
that  were  inspected  out-of-doors  and  in-doors,  laboured  for  the 
support  of  the  organisation  which  regulated  them,  and  were  left 
with  but  a  bare  subsistence  for  themselves.  And  then  would  be 
completely  revived,  under  a  different  form,  that  regime  of  status — 


THE  COMING  SLAVERY. 


43 


that  system  of  compulsory  co-operation,  the  decaying  tradition  of 
which  is  represented  by  the  old  Toryism,  and  towards  which  the 
new  Toryism  is  carrying  ns  back. 

“  But  we  shall  be  on  our  guard  against  all  that — we  shall  take 
precautions  to  ward  off  such  disasters,”  will  doubtless  say  the 
enthusiasts.  Be  they  “  practical”  politicians  with  their  new  regu¬ 
lative  measures,  or  communists  with  their  schemes  for  re-organizing 
labour,  their  reply  is  ever  the  same  : — “  It  is  true  that  plans  of 
kindred  nature  have,  from  unforeseen  causes  or  adverse  accidents, 
or  the  misdeeds  of  those  concerned,  been  brought  to  failure ;  but 
this  time  we  shall  profit  by  past  experiences  and  succeed.”  There 
seems  no  getting  people  to  accept  the  truth,  which  nevertheless  is 
conspicuous  enough,  that  the  welfare  of  a  society  and  the  justice  of 
its  arrangements  are  at  bottom  dependent  on  the  characters  of  its 
members  ;  and  that  improvement  in  neither  can  take  place  with¬ 
out  that  improvement  in  character  which  results  from  carrying  on 
peaceful  industry  under  the  restraints  imposed  by  an  orderly  social 
life.  The  belief,  not  only  of  the  socialists  but  also  of  those  so-called 
Liberals  who  are  diligently  preparing  the  way  for  them,  is  that  by 
due  skill  an  ill- working  humanity  may  be  framed  into  well- working 
institutions.  It  is  a  delusion.  The  defective  natures  of  citizens 
will  show  themselves  in  the  bad  acting  of  whatever  social  structure 
they  are  arranged  into.  There  is  no  political  alchemy  by  which 
you  can  get  golden  conduct  out  of  leaden  instincts. 


Note. — Two  replies  by  socialists  to  the  foregoing  article  have 
appeared  since  its  publication — Socialism  and  Slavery  by  H.  M. 
Hyndman  and  Herbert  Spencer  on  Socialism  by  Frank  Fairman. 
Notice  of  them  here  must  be  limited  to  saying  that,  as  usual  with 
antagonists,  they  ascribe  to  me  opinions  which  I  do  not  hold. 
Disapproval  of  Socialism  does  not,  as  Mr.  Hyndman  assumes, 
necessitate  approval  of  existing  arrangements.  Many  things  he 
reprobates  I  reprobate  quite  as  much ;  but  I  dissent  from  his 
remedy.  The  gentleman  who  writes  under  the  pseudonym  of 
“  Frank  Fairman,”  reproaches  me  with  having  receded  from  that 
sympathetic  defence  of  the  labouring-classes  which  he  finds  in 
Social  Statics  ;  but  I  am  quite  unconscious  of  any  such  change  as 
he  alleges.  Looking  with  a  lenient  eye  upon  the  irregularities  of 
those  whose  lives  are  hard,  by  no  means  involves  tolerance  of  good- 
for-nothings. 


THE  SINS  OF  LEGISLATORS. 


Be  it  or  be  it  not  true  that  Man  is  shapen  in  iniquity  and  con¬ 
ceived  in  sin,  it  is  unquestionably  true  that  Government  is  begotten 
of  aggression  and  by  aggression.  In  small  undeveloped  societies 
where  for  ages  complete  peace  has  continued,  there  exists  nothing 
like  what  we  call  Government :  no  coercive  agency,  but  mere 
honorary  headship,  if  any  headship  at  all.  In  these  exceptional 
communities,  unaggressive  and  from  special  causes  unaggressed 
upon,  there  is  so  little  deviation  from  the  virtues  of  truthfulness, 
honesty,  justice,  and  generosity,  that  nothing  beyond  an  occasional 
expression  of  public  opinion  by  informally-assembled  elders  is 
needful.*  Conversely,  we  find  proofs  that,  at  first  recognized  but 
temporarily  during  leadership  in  war,  the  authority  of  a  chief  is 
permanently  established  by  continuity  of  war;  and  grows  strong 
where  successful  aggression  ends  in  subjection  of  neighbouring 
tribes.  And  thence  onwards,  examples  furnished  by  all  races  put 
beyond  doubt  the  truth,  that  the  coercive  power  of  the  chief,  deve¬ 
loping  into  king,  and  king  of  kings  (a  frequent  title  in  the  ancient 
East),  becomes  great  in  proportion  as  conquest  becomes  habitual 
and  the  union  of  subdued  nations  extensive.f  Comparisons  dis¬ 
close  a  further  truth  which  should  be  ever  present  to  us — the 
truth  that  the  aggressiveness  of  the  ruling  power  inside  a  society 
increases  with  its  aggressiveness  outside  the  society.  As,  to  make 
an  efficient  army,  the  soldiers  in  their  several  grades  must  be 
subordinate  to  the  commander;  so,  to  make  an  efficient  fighting 
community,  must  the  citizens  be  subordinate  to  the  ruling  power. 

*  Political  Institutions,  §§  437,  573.  f  Hid.,  §§  471-3. 


THE  SINS  OF  LEGISLATOES. 


45 


They  must  furnish  recruits  to  the  extent  demanded,  and  yield  up 
whatever  property  is  required. 

An  obvious  implication  is  that  the  ethics  of  Government,  origi¬ 
nally  identical  with  the  ethics  of  war,  must  long  remain  akin  to 
them  j  and  can  diverge  from  them  only  as  warlike  activities  and 
preparations  become  less.  Current  evidence  shows  this.  At  pre¬ 
sent  on  the  Continent,  the  citizen  is  free  only  when  his  services  as 
a  soldier  are  not  demanded ;  and  during  the  rest  of  his  life  he  is 
largely  enslaved  in  supporting  the  military  organization.  Even 
among  ourselves,  a  serious  war  would,  by  the  necessitated  con¬ 
scription,  suspend  the  liberties  of  large  numbers  and  trench  on  the 
liberties  of  the  rest,  by  taking  from  them  through  taxes  whatever 
supplies  were  needed — that  is,  forcing  them  to  labour  so  many  days 
more  for  the  State.  Inevitably  the  established  code  of  conduct  in 
the  dealings  of  Governments  with  citizens,  must  be  allied  to  their 
code  of  conduct  in  their  dealings  with  one  another. 

I  am  not,  under  the  title  of  this  article,  about  to  treat  of  the 
trespasses  and  the  revenges  for  trespasses,  accounts  of  which  consti¬ 
tute  the  great  mass  of  history ;  nor  to  trace  the  internal  inequities 
which  have  ever  accompanied  the  external  inequities.  I  do  not 
propose  here  to  catalogue  the  crimes  of  irresponsible  legislators  ; 
beginning  with  that  of  King  Khufu,  the  stones  of  whose  vast  tomb 
were  laid  in  the  bloody  sweat  of  tens  of  thousands  of  slaves  toiling 
through  long  years  under  the  lash ;  going  on  to  those  committed 
by  conquerors,  Egyptian,  Assyrian,  Persian,  Macedonian,  Roman 
and  the  rest ;  and  ending  with  those  of  Napoleon,  whose  ambition 
to  set  his  foot  on  the  neck  of  the  civilized  world,  cost  not  less  than 
two  million  lives  *  Nor  do  I  propose  here  to  enumerate  those  sins 
of  responsible  legislators  seen  in  the  long  list  of  laws  made  in  the 
interests  of  dominant  classes — a  list  coming  down  in  our  own 
country  to  those  under  which  there  were  long  maintained  slavery 
and  the  slave-trade,  torturing  nearly  40,000  negroes  annually  by 
close  packing  during  a  tropical  voyage,  and  killing  a  large  per¬ 
centage  of  them,  and  ending  with  that  of  the  corn-laws,  by  which, 
says  Sir  Erskine  May,  “  to  ensure  high  rents,  it  had  been  decreed 
that  multitudes  should  hunger.  ”f 

Not,  indeed,  that  a  presentation  of  the  conspicuous  misdeeds  of 
legislators,  responsible  and  irresponsible,  would  be  useless.  It  would 

*  Lanfrey.  See  also  Study  of  Sociology ,  p.  42,  and  Appendix. 

f  Constitutional  History  of  England ,  ii.  p.  617. 


46 


TIIE  MAH  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


have  several  uses— one  of  them  relevant  to  the  truth  above  pointed 
out.  Such  a  presentation  would  make  clear  how  that  identity  of 
governmental  ethics  with  military  ethics  which  necessarily  exists 
during  primitive  times,  when  the  army  is  simply  the  mobilized 
society  and  the  society  is  the  quiescent  army,  continues  through 
long  stages,  and  even  now  affects  in  great  degrees  our  law-pro- 
ceedmgs  and  our  daily  lives.  Having,  for  instance,  shown  that  in 
numerous  savage  tribes  the  judicial  function  of  the  chief  does  not 
exist,  or  is  nominal,  and  that  very  generally  during  early  stages  of 
European  civilization,  each  man  had  to  defend  himself  and  rectify 
his  private  wrongs  as  best  he  might — having  shown  that  in  medieval 
times  the  right  of  private  war  among  members  of  the  military 
order  was  brought  to  an  end,  not  because  the  head  ruler  thought 
it  his  duty  to  arbitrate,  but  because  private  wars  interfered  with 
the  efficiency  of  his  army  in  public  wars — having  shown  that  the 
administration  of  justice  displayed  through  subsequent  ages  a 
large  amount  of  its  primitive  nature,  in  trial  by  battle  carried  on 
before  the  king  or  his  deputy  as  umpire,  and  which,  among  our¬ 
selves,  continued  nominally  to  be  an  alternative  form  of  trial  down 
to  1819 ;  it  might  then  be  pointed  out  that  even  now  there  survives 
trial  by  battle  under  another  form  :  counsel  being  the  champions 
and  purses  the  weapons.  In  civil  cases,  the  ruling  agency  cares 
scarcely  more  than  of  old  about  rectifying  the  wrongs  of  the  injured; 
but,  practically,  its  deputy  does  little  else  than  to  enforce  the  rules 
of  the  fight :  the  result  being  less  a  question  of  equity  than  a 
question  of  pecuniary  ability  and  forensic  skill.  Hay,  so  little 
concern  for  the  administration  of  justice  is  shown  by  the  ruling 
agency,  that  when,  by  legal  conflict  carried  on  in  the  presence  of 
its  deputy,  the  combatants  have  been  pecuniarily  bled  even  to  the 
extent  of  producing  prostration,  and  when  an  appeal  being  made 
by  one  of  them  the  decision  is  reversed,  the  beaten  combatant  is 
made  to  pay  for  the  blunders  of  the  deputy,  or  of  a  preceding 
deputy ;  and  not  unfrequently  the  wronged  man,  who  sought  pro¬ 
tection  or  restitution,  is  taken  out  of  court  pecuniarily  dead. 

Adequately  done,  such  a  portrayal  of  governmental  misdeeds  of 
commission  and  omission,  proving  that  the  partially-surviving  code 
of  ethics  arising  in,  and  proper  to,  a  state  of  war,  still  vitiates 
governmental  action,  might  greatly  moderate  the  hopes  of  those 
who  are  anxious  to  extend  governmental  control.  After  observing 
that  along  with  the  still-manifest  traits  of  that  primitive  political 


•  THE  SINS  OF  LEGISLATORS. 


47 


structure  which  chronic  militancy  produces,  there  goes  a  still- 
manifest  survival  of  its  primitive  principles  ;  the  reformer  and  the 
philanthropist  might  be  less  sanguine  in  their  anticipations  of  good 
from  its  all-pervading  agency,  and  might  be  more  inclined  to  trust 
agencies  of  a  non-governmental  kind. 

But  leaving  out  the  greater  part  of  the  large  topic  comprehended 
under  the  title  of  this  article,  I  propose  here  to  deal  only  with  a 
comparatively  small  remaining  part  — those  sins  of  legislators 
which  are  not  generated  by  their  personal  ambitions  or  class  in¬ 
terests,  but  result  from  a  lack  of  the  study  by  which  they  are 
morally  bound  to  prepare  themselves. 

A  druggist’s  assistant  who,  after  listening  to  the  description  of 
pains  which  he  mistakes  for  those  of  colic,  but  which  are  really 
caused  by  inflammation  of  the  caecum,  prescribes  a  sharp  purgative 
and  kills  the  patient,  is  found  guilty  of  manslaughter.  He  is  not 
allowed  to  excuse  himself  on  the  ground  that  he  did  not  intend 
harm  but  hoped  for  good.  The  plea  that  he  simply  made  a  mis¬ 
take  in  his  diagnosis  is  not  entertained.  He  is  told  that  he  had  no 
right  to  risk  disastrous  consequences  by  meddling  in  a  matter  con¬ 
cerning  which  his  knowledge  was  so  inadequate.  The  fact  that  he 
was  ignorant  how  great  was  his  ignorance  is  not  accepted  in  bar  of 
judgment.  It  is  tacitly  assumed  that  the  experience  common  to 
all  should  have  taught  him  that  even  the  skilled,  and  much  more 
the  unskilled,  make  mistakes  in  the  identification  of  disorders  and 
in  the  appropriate  treatment ;  and  that  having  disregarded  the 
warning  derivable  from  common  experience,  he  was  answerable 
for  the  consequences. 

We  measure  the  responsibilities  of  legislators  for  mischiefs 
they  may  do,  in  a  much  more  lenient  fashion.  In  most  cases,  so 
far  from  thinking  of  them  as  deserving  punishment  for  causing 
disasters  by  laws  ignorantly  enacted,  we  scarcely  think  of  them  as 
deserving  reprobation.  It  is  held  that  common  experience  should 
have  taught  the  druggist’s  assistant,  untrained  as  he  is,  not  to  inter¬ 
fere  ;  but  it  is  not  held  that  common  experience  should  have  taught 
the  legislator  not  to  interfere  till  he  has  trained  himself.  Though 
multitudinous  facts  are  before  him  in  the  recorded  legislation  of 
our  own  country  and  of  other  countries,  which  should  impiess  on 
him  the  immense  evils  caused  by  wrong  treatment,  he  is  not  con¬ 
demned  for  disregarding  these  warnings  against  rash  meddling. 


43 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


Contrariwise,  it  is  thought  meritorious  in  him  when _ perhaps 

lately  from  college,  perhaps  fresh  from  keeping  a  pack  of  hounds 
which  made  him  popular  in  his  county,  perhaps  emerging  from  a 
provincial  town  where  he  acquired  a  fortune,  perhaps  rising  from 
the  bar  at  which  he  has  gained  a  name  as  an  advocate— he  enters 
Parliament ;  and  forthwith,  in  quite  a  light-hearted  way,  begins  to 
aid  or  hinder  this  or  that  means  of  operating  on  the  body  politic. 
In  this  case  there  is  no  occasion  even  to  make  for  him  the  excuse 
that  he  does  not  know  how  little  he  knows ;  for  the  public  at  large 
agrees  with  him  in  thinking  it  needless  that  he  should  know  any¬ 
thing  more  than  what  the  debates  on  the  proposed  measures  tell 
him. 

And  yet  the  mischiefs  wrought  by  uninstructed  law-making, 
enormous  in  their  amount  as  compared  with  those  caused  by  un¬ 
instructed  medical  treatment,  are  conspicuous  to  all  who  do  but 
glance  over  its  history.  The  reader  must  pardon  me  while  I  recall 
a  few  familiar  instances.  Century  after  century,  statesmen  went 
on  enacting  usury  laws  which  made  worse  the  condition  of  the 
debtor  raising  the  rate  of  interest  “  from  five  to  six  when  in¬ 
tending  to  reduce  it  to  four,”*  as  under  Louis  XV. ;  and  indirectly 
producing  undreamt  of  evils  of  many  kinds,  such  as  preventing  the 
reproductive  use  of  spare  capital,  and  “burdening  the  small  pro¬ 
prietors  with  a  multitude  of  perpetual  services.”  f  So,  too,  the 
endeavours  which  in  England  continued  through  five  hundred 
years  to  stop  forestalling,  and  which  in  France,  as  Arthur  Youno- 
witnessed,  prevented  any  one  from  buying  “more  than  two  bushels 
of  wheat  at  market,”  J  went  on  generation  after  generation  in¬ 
creasing  the  miseries  and  mortality  due  to  dearth ;  for,  as  every¬ 
body  now  knows,  the  wholesale  dealer,  who  was  in  the  statute 
“Ee  Pistoribus”  vituperated  as  “an  open  oppressor  of  poor 
people,”  §  is  simply  one  whose  function  it  is  to  equalize  the  supply 
of  a  commodity  by  checking  unduly  rapid  consumption.  Of 
kindred  nature  was  the  measure  which,  in  1315,  to  diminish  the 
pressure  of  famine,  prescribed  the  prices  of  foods,  but  which  was 
hastily  repealed  after  it  had  caused  entire  disappearance  of  various 

*  Lecky,  Rationalism,  ii.  293-4. 

t  De  Tocqueville,  The  State  of  Society  in  France  before  the  Revolution 
p.  421.  * 

t  Young’s  Travels,  i.  128-9. 

§  Craik’s  History  of  British  Commerce ,  i.  134, 


THE  SINS  OF  LEGISLATORS. 


49 


foods  from  the  markets ;  and  also  such  measures,  more  continuously 
operating,  as  those  which  settled  by  magisterial  order  “  the 
reasonable  gains  ”  of  victuallers.*  Of  like  spirit  and  followed  by 
allied  mischiefs  have  been  the  many  endeavours  to  fix  wages,  which 
began  with  the  Statute  of  Labourers  under  Edward  III.,  and 
ceased  only  sixty  years  ago;  when,  having  long  galvanized  in 
Spitalfields  a  decaying  industry,  and  fostered  there  a  miserable 
population,  Lords  and  Commons  finally  gave  up  fixing  silk-weavers* 
earnings  by  the  decisions  of  magistrates. 

Here  I  imagine  an  impatient  interruption.  “We  know  all 
that ;  the  story  is  stale.  The  mischiefs  of  interfering  with  trade 
have  been  dinned  in  our  ears  till  we  are  weary ;  and  no  one  needs 
to  be  taught  the  lesson  afresh.”  My  first  reply  is  that  by  the  great 
majority  the  lesson  was  never  properly  learnt  at  all,  and  that  many 
of  those  who  did  learn  it  have  forgotten  it.  Eor  just  the  same 
pleas  which  of  old  were  put  in  for  these  dictations,  are  again  put 
in.  In  the  statute  35  of  Edward  III.,  which  aimed  to  keep  down 
the  price  of  herrings  (but  was  soon  repealed  because  it  raised  the 
price),  it  was  complained  that  people  “  coming  to  the  fair  ...  do 
bargain  for  herring,  and  every  of  them,  by  malice  and  envy, 
increase  upon  other,  and,  if  one  proffer  forty  shillings,  another  will 
proffer  ten  shillings  more,  and  the  third  sixty  shillings,  and  so 
every  one  surmounteth  other  in  the  bargain,  "f*  And  now  the 
“  higgling  of  the  market,”  here  condemned  and  ascribed  to  “  malice 
and  envy,”  is  being  again  condemned.  The  evils  of  competition 
have  all  along  been  the  stock  cry  of  the  Socialists  ;  and  the  council 
of  the  Democratic  Eederation  denounces  the  carrying  on  of 
exchange  under  “  the  control  of  individual  greed  and  profit.  My 
second  reply  is  that  interferences  with  the  law  of  supply  and 
demand,  which  a  generation  ago  were  admitted  to  be  habitually 
mischievous,  are  now  being  daily  made  by  Acts  of  Parliament  in 
new  fields ;  and  that,  as  I  shall  presently  show,  they  are  in  these 
fields  increasing  the  evils  to  be  cured  and  producing  fresh  ones,  as 
of  old  they  did  in  fields  no  longer  intruded  upon. 

Returning  from  this  parenthesis,  I  go  on  to  explain  that  the 
above  Acts  are  named  to  remind  the  reader  that  uninstructed 
legislators  have  in  past  times  continually  increased  human  suffering 
in° their  endeavours  to  mitigate  it ;  and  I  have  now  to  add  that  if 
these  evils,  shown  to  be  legislatively  intensified  or  produced, 
*  Craik’s  History  of  British  Commerce ,  i.  136-7.  +  Craik,  loc,  ext.,  1. 137. 


50 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


be  multiplied  by  ten  or  more,  a  conception  will  be  formed  of 
the  aggregate  evils  caused  by  law-making  nngnided  by  social 
science.  In  a  paper  read  to  the  Statistical  Society  in  May,  1873, 
Mr.  Janson,  vice-president  of  the  Law  Society,  stated  that  from  the 
Statute  of  Merton  (20  Henry  III.)  to  the  end  of  1872,  there  had 
been  passed  18,110  public  Acts;  of  which  he  estimated  that  four- 
fifths  had  been  wholly  or  partially  repealed.  He  also  stated  that 
the  number  of  public  Acts  repealed  wholly  or  in  part,  or  amended, 
during  the  three  years  1870-71-72  had  been  3,532,  of  which  2,759 
had  been  totally  repealed.  To  see  whether  this  rate  of  repeal  has 
continued,  I  have  referred  to  the  annually-issued  volumes  of  “  The 
Public  General  Statutes”  for  the  last  three  sessions.  Saying 
nothing  of  the  numerous  amended  Acts,  the  result  is  that  in  the 
last  three  sessions  there  have  been  totally  repealed,  separately  or 
in  groups,  650  Acts,  belonging  to  the  present  reign,  besides  many  of 
preceding  reigns.  This,  of  course,  is  gr'atly  above  the  average 
rate ;  for  there  has  of  late  been  an  active  purgation  of  the  statute- 
book.  But  making  every  allowance,  we  must  infer  that  within 
our  own  times,  repeals  have  mounted  some  distance  into  the 
thousands.  Doubtless  a  number  of  them  have  been  of  laws  that 
were  obsolete ;  others  have  been  demanded  by  changes  of  circum¬ 
stances  (though  seeing  how  many  of  them  are  of  quite  recent 
Acts,  this  has  not  been  a  large  cause)  ;  others  simply  because  they 
were  inoperative;  and  others  have  been  consequent  on  the  con¬ 
solidations  of  numerous  Acts  into  single  Acts.  But  unques¬ 
tionably  in  multitudinous  cases,  repeals  came  because  the  Acts 
had  proved  injurious.  We  talk  glibly  of  such  changes — we  think 
of  cancelled  legislation  with  indifference.  We  forget  that  before 
laws  are  abolished  they  have  generally  been  inflicting  evils 
more  or  less  serious  ;  some  for  a  few  years,  some  for  tens  of  years, 
some  for  centuries.  Change  your  vague  idea  of  a  bad  law  into  a 
definite  idea  of  it  as  an  agency  operating  on  people’s  lives,  and 
you  see  that  it  means  so  much  of  pain,  so  much  of  illness,  so 
much  of  mortality.  A  vicious  form  of  legal  procedure,  for  example, 
either  enacted  or  tolerated,  entails  on  suitors,  costs,  or  delays,  or 
defeats.  What  do  these  imply  ?  Loss  of  money,  often  ill-spared  ; 
great  and  prolonged  anxiety  ;  frequently  consequent  illness  ;  unhap- 
ness  of  family  and  dependents;  children  stinted  in  food  and 
clothing — all  of  them  miseries  which  bring  after  them  multi¬ 
plied  remoter  miseries.  Add  to  which  there  are  the  far  more 


THE  SINS  OF  LEGISLATORS. 


51 


numerous  cases  of  those  who,  lacking  the  means  or  the  courage  to 
enter  on  law-suits,  and  therefore  submitting  to  frauds,  are  im¬ 
poverished  ;  and  have  similarly  to  bear  the  pains  of  body  and  mind 
which  ensue.  Even  to  say  that  a  law  has  been  simply  a  hindrance, 
is  to  say  that  it  has  caused  needless  loss  of  time,  extra  trouble,  and 
additional  worry ;  and  among  over-burdened  people  extra  trouble 
and  worry  imply,  here  and  there,  break-downs  in  health  with  their 
entailed  direct  and  indirect  sufferings.  Seeing,  then,  that  bad 
legislation  means  injury  to  men’s  lives,  judge  what  must  be  the 
total  amount  of  mental  distress,  physical  pain,  and  raised  mortality, 
which  these  thousands  of  repealed  Acts  of  Parliament  represent  ! 
Fully  to  bring  home  the  truth  that  law-making  unguided  by  ade¬ 
quate  knowledge  brings  immense  evils,  let  me  take  a  special  case 
which  a  question  of  the  day  recalls. 

Already  I  have  hinted  that  interferences  with  the  connexion  be¬ 
tween  supply  and  demand,  given  up  in  certain  fields  after  immense 
mischiefs  had  been  done  during  many  centuries,  are  now  taking 
place  in  other  fields.  This  connexion  is  supposed  to  hold  only 
where  it  has  been  proved  to  hold  by  the  evils  of  disregarding  it : 
so  feeble  is  men’s  belief  in  it.  There  seems  no  suspicion  that  in 
cases  where  it  seems  to  fail,  natural  causation  has  been  traversed  by 
artificial  hindrances.  And  yet  in  the  case  to  which  I  now  refer — 
that  of  the  supply  of  houses  for  the  poor — it  needs  but  to  ask  what 
lawrs  have  been  doing  for  a  long  time  past,  to  see  that  the  terrible 
evils  complained  of  are  mostly  law-made. 

A  generation  ago  discussion  was  taking  place  concerning  the  in¬ 
adequacy  and  badness  of  industrial  dwellings,  and  I  had  occasion 
to  deal  with  the  question.  Here  is  a  passage  then  written : — 

“  An  architect  and  surveyor  describes  it  [the  Building  Act]  as  having 
worked  after  the  following  manner.  In  those  districts  of  London  consist¬ 
ing  of  inferior  houses  built  in  that  unsubstantial  fashion  which  the  New 
Building  Act  was  to  mend,  there  obtains  an  average  rent,  sufficiently  re¬ 
munerative  to  landlords  whose  houses  were  run  up  economically  before 
the  New  Building  Act  passed.  This  existing  average  rent  fixes  the  rent 
that  must  be  charged  in  these  districts  for  new  houses  of  the  same  accom¬ 
modation— that  is  the  same  number  of  rooms,  for  the  people  they  are  built 
for  do  not  appreciate  the  extra  safety  of  living  within  walls  strengthened 
with  hoop-iron  bond.  Now  it  turns  out  upon  trial,  that  houses  built  in 
accordance  with  the  present  regulations,  and  let  at  this  established  rate, 
bring  in  nothing  like  a  reasonable  return.  Builders  have  consequently 


52 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


confined  themselves  to  erecting  houses  in  better  districts  (where  the  possi¬ 
bility  of  a  profitable  competition  with  pre-existing  houses  shows  that  those 
pre-existing  houses  were  tolerably  substantial),  and  have  ceased  to  erect 
dwellings  for  the  masses,  except  in  the  suburbs  where  no  pressing  sanitary 
evils  exist.  Meanwhile,  in  the  inferior  districts  above  described,  has  re¬ 
sulted  an  increase  of  overcrowding — half-a-dozen  families  in  a  house,  a 
score  lodgers  to  a  room.  Nay,  more  than  this  has  resulted.  That  state  of 
miserable  dilapidation  into  which  these  abodes  of  the  poor  are  allowed  to 
fall,  is  due  to  the  absence  of  competition  from  new  houses.  Landlords  do 
not  find  their  tenants  tempted  away  by  the  offer  of  better  accommodation. 
Repairs,  being  unnecessary  for  securing  the  largest  amount  of  profit, 

are  not  made . In  fact  for  a  large  percentage  of  the  very 

horrors  which  our  sanitary  agitators  are  trying  to  cure  by  law,  we  have  to 
thank  previous  agitators  of  the  same  school !  ”■ — Social  Statics ,  p.  384 
(edition  of  1851). 

These  were  not  the  only  law-made  causes  of  such  evils.  As  shown 
in  the  following  further  passage,  sundry  others  were  recognized : — 

“  Writing  before  the  repeal  of  the  brick-duty,  the  Builder  says  ‘  It  is 
supposed  that  one-fourth  of  the  cost  of  a  dwelling  which  lets  for  2s.  6c?.  or 
3s.  a  week  is  caused  by  the  expense  of  the  title-deeds  and  the  tax  on  wood 
and  bricks  used  in  its  construction.  Of  course,  the  owner  of  such  property 
must  be  remunerated,  and  he  therefore  charges  7 \d.  or  9c?.  a  week  to  cover 
these  burdens/  Mr.  C.  Gatliff,  secretary  to  the  Society  for  Improving  the 
Dwellings  of  the  Working  Classes,  describing  the  effect  of  the  window-tax, 
says  : — ‘  They  are  now  paying  upon  their  institution  in  St.  Pancras  the  sum 
of  £162  165.  in  window-duties,  or  1  per  cent,  per  annum  upon  the  original 
outlay.  The  average  rental  paid  by  the  Society’s  tenants  is  5s.  6c?.  per 
week,  and  the  window-duty  deducts  from  this  7 \d.  per  week.’” — Times , 
January  31,  1850. — Social  Statics ,  p.  385  (edition  of  1851). 

Neither  is  this  all  the  evidence  which  the  press  of  those  days 
afforded.  There  was  published  in  the  Times  of  December  7,  1850 
(too  late  to  be  used  in  the  above-named  work,  which  I  issued  in 
the  last  week  of  1850),  a  letter  dated  from  the  Reform  Club,  and 
signed  “  Architect,”  which  contained  the  following  passages  : — 

‘  Lord  Kinnaird  recommends  in  your  paper  of  yesterday  the  construc¬ 
tion  of  model  lodging-houses  by  throwing  two  or  three  houses  into  one. 

“  Allow  me  to  suggest  to  his  Lordship,  and  to  his  friend  Lord  Ashley 
to  whom  he  refers,  that  if, — 

“  1.  The  window-tax  were  repealed, 

“  2.  The  Building  Act  repealed  (excepting  the  clauses  enacting  that 
party  and  external  walls  shall  be  fireproof), 

“  3.  The  timber  duties  either  equalized  or  repealed,  and, 


THE  SINS  OF  LEGISLATORS. 


53 


“4.  An  Act  passed  to  facilitate  the  transfer  of  property, 

“There  would  be  no  more  necessity  for  model  lodging-houses  than 
there  is  for  model  ships,  model  cotton-mills,  or  model  steam-engines. 

“  The  first  limits  the  poor  man’s  house  to  seven  windows, 

“The  second  limits  the  size  of  the  poor  man’s  house  to  25  feet  by  18 
(about  the  size  of  a  gentleman’s  dining-room),  into  which  space  the  builder 
has  to  cram  a  staircase,  an  entrance-passage,  a  parlour,  and  a  kitchen 
(walls  and  partitions  included). 

“  The  third  induces  the  builder  to  erect  the  poor  man’s  house  of  timber 
unfit  for  building  purposes,  the  duty  on  the  good  material  (Baltic)  being- 
fifteen  times  more  than  the  duty  on  the  bad  or  injurious  article  (Cana¬ 
dian).  The  Government,  even,  exclude  the  latter  from  all  their  contracts. 

“  The  fourth  would  have  considerable  influence  upon  the  present  miser¬ 
able  state  of  the  dwellings  of  the  poor.  Small  freeholds  might  then  be 
transferred  as  easily  as  leaseholds.  The  effect  of  building  leases  has 
been  a  direct  inducement  to  bad  building.” 

To  guard  against  mis-statement  or  over-statement,  I  have  taken 
the  precaution  to  consult  a  large  East-end  builder  and  contractor 
of  forty  years’  experience,  Mr.  C.  Forrest,  Museum  Works,  17, 
Victoria  Park  Square,  Bethnal  Green,  who,  being  churchwarden, 
member  of  the  vestry,  and  of  the  board  of  guardians,  adds  exten¬ 
sive  knowledge  of  local  public  affairs  to  his  extensive  knowledge  of 
the  building  business.  Mr.  Forrest,  who  authorizes  me  to  give  his 
name,  verifies  the  foregoing  statements  with  the  exception  of  one 
which  he  strengthens.  He  says  that  “  Architect  ”  understates  the 
evil  entailed  by  the  definition  of  “  a  fourth-rate  house  ;  ”  since  the 
dimensions  are  much  less  than  those  he  gives  (perhaps  in  con¬ 
formity  with  the  provisions  of  a  more  recent  Building  Act).  Mr. 
Forrest  has  done  more  than  this.  Besides  illustrating  the  bad 
effects  of  great  increase  in  ground-rents  (in  sixty  years  from  £1  to 
£8  10s.  for  a  fourth-rate  house)  which,  joined  with  other  causes, 
had  obliged  him  to  abandon  plans  for  industrial  dwellings  he  had 
intended  to  build — besides  agreeing  with  “  Architect  ”  that  this 
evil  has  been  greatly  increased  by  the  difficulties  of  land- transfer  due 
to  the  law-established  system  of  trusts  and  entails  ;  he  pointed  out 
that  a  further  penalty  on  the  building  of  small  houses  is  inflicted 
by  additions  to  local  burdens  (“  prohibitory  imposts  ”  he  called 
them)  :  one  of  the  instances  he  named  being  that  to  the  cost  of  each 
new  house  has  to  be  added  the  cost  of  pavement,  roadway  and 
sewerage,  which  is  charged  according  to  length  of  frontage,  and 


54 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


which,  consequently,  bears  a  far  larger  ratio  to  the  value  of  a  small 
house  than  to  the  value  of  a  large  one. 

From  these  law-produced  mischiefs,  which  were  great  a  gene¬ 
ration  ago  and  have  since  been  increasing,  let  us  pass  to  more  recent 
law-produced  mischiefs.  The  misery,  the  disease,  the  mortality  in 
rookeries,  made  continually  worse  by  artificial  impediments  to 
the  increase  of  fourth-rate  houses,  and  by  the  necessitated  greater 
crowding  of  those  which  existed,  having  become  a  scandal,  Govern¬ 
ment  was  invoked  to  remove  the  evil.  It  responded  by  Artisans’ 
Dwellings  Acts  ;  giving  to  local  authorities  powers  to  pull  down  bad 
houses  and  provide  for  the  building  of  good  ones.  What  have  been 
the  results  ?  A  summary  of  the  operations  of  the  Metropolitan 
Board  of  Works,  dated  December  21,  1883,  shows  that  up  to  last 
September  it  had,  at  a  cost  of  a  million  and  a  quarter  to  ratepayers, 
unhoused  21,000  persons  and  provided  houses  for  12,000— the 
remaining  9,000  to  be  hereafter  provided  for,  being,  meanwhile,  left 
houseless.  This  is  not  all.  Another  local  lieutenant  of  the  Govern¬ 
ment,  the  Commission  of  Sewers  for  the  City,  working  on  the  same 
lines,  has,  under  legislative  compulsion,  pulled  down  in  Golden  Lane 
and  Petticoat  Square,  masses  of  condemned  small  houses,  which, 
together,  accommodated  1,734  poor  people ;  and  of  the  spaces  thus 
cleared  five  years  ago,  one  has,  by  State- authority,  been  sold  for  a 
railway  station,  and  the  other  is  only  now  being  covered  with 
industrial  dwellings  which  will  eventually  accommodate  one-half  of 
the  expelled  population  :  the  result  up  to  the  present  time  being  that, 
added  to  those  displaced  by  the  Metropolitan  Board  of  Works,  these 
1,734  displaced  five  years  ago,  form  a  total  of  nearly  11,000  arti¬ 
ficially  made  homeless,  who  have  had  to  find  corners  for  themselves 
i*1  miserable  places  that  were  already  overflowing ! 

See  then  wThat  legislation  has  done.  By  ill-imposed  taxes, 
raising  the  prices  of  bricks  and  timber,  it  added  to  the  costs  of 
houses ;  and  prompted,  for  economy’s  sake,  the  use  of  bad  materials 
in  scanty  quantities.  To  check  the  consequent  production  of 
wretched  dwellings,  it  established  regulations  which,  in  mediaeval 
fashion,  dictated  the  quality  of  the  commodity  produced :  there  being 
no  perception  that  by  insisting  on  a  higher  quality  and  therefore 
higher  price,  it  would  limit  the  demand  and  eventually  diminish  the 
supply.  By  additional  local  burdens,  legislation  has  of  late  still 
further  hindered  the  building  of  small  houses.  Finally,  having,  by 
successive  measures,  produced  first  bad  houses  and  then  a  deficiency 


THE  SINS  OF  LEGISLATORS. 


55 


of  better  ones,  it  has  at  length  provided  for  the  artificially-increased 
overflow  of  poor  people  by  diminishing  the  house-capacity  which 
already  could  not  contain  them  ! 

Where  then  lies  the  blame  for  the  miseries  of  the  East-end  ? 
Against  whom  should  be  raised  “the  bitter  cry  of  outcast 
London  F  ” 

The  German  anthropologist  Bastian,  tells  us  that  a  sick  native 
of  Guinea  wTho  causes  the  fetish  to  lie  by  not  recovering,  is 
strangled;*  and  we  may  reasonably  suppose  that  among  the  Guinea 
people,  any  one  audacious  enough  to  call  in  question  the  power  of 
the  fetish  would  be  promptly  sacrificed.  In  days  when  govern¬ 
mental  authority  was  enforced  by  strong  measures,  there  was  a 
kindred  danger  in  saying  anything  disrespectful  of  the  political 
fetish.  Nowadays,  however,  the  worst  punishment  to  be  looked  for 
by  one  who  questions  its  omnipotence,  is  that  he  will  be  reviled  as  a 
reactionary  who  talks  laissez-faire.  That  any  facts  he  may  bring 
forward  will  appreciably  decrease  the  established  faith  is  not  to  be 
expected ;  for  we  are  daily  shown  that  this  faith  is  proof  against  all 
adverse  evidence.  Let  us  contemplate  a  small  part  of  that  vast 
mass  of  it  which  passes  unheeded. 

“  A  Government- office  is  like  an  inverted  filter :  you  send  in 
accounts  clear  and  they  come  out  muddy.”  Such  was  the  com¬ 
parison  I  heard  made  many  years  ago  by  the  late  Sir  Charles  Fox, 
who,  in  the  conduct  of  his  business,  had  considerable  experience  of 
public  departments.  That  his  opinion  was  not  a  singular  one, 
though  his  comparison  was,  all  men  know.  Exposures  by  the  press 
and  criticisms  in  Parliament,  leave  no  one  in  ignorance  of  the 
vices  of  red-tape  routine.  Its  delays,  perpetually  complained  of, 
and  which  in  the  time  of  Mr.  Fox  Maule  went  to  the  extent  that 
“  the  commissions  of  officers  in  the  army  ”  were  generally  “  about 
two  years  in  arrear,”  is  afresh  illustrated  by  the  issue  of  the  first 
volume  of  the  detailed  census  of  1881,  more  than  two  years  after 
the  information  was  collected.  If  we  seek  explanations  of  such 
delays,  we  find  one  origin  to  be  a  scarcely  credible  confusion.  In 
the  case  of  the  census  returns,  the  Registrar- General  tells  us  that 
“  the  difficulty  consists  not  merely  in  the  vast  multitude  of  different 
areas  that  have  to  be  taken  into  account,  but  still  more  in  the 
bewildering  complexity  of  their  boundaries  :  ”  there  being  39,000 

*  Mensch,  iii.  p.  225. 


56  THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 

administrative  areas  of  twenty-two  different  kinds  which  overlap 
one  another — hundreds,  parishes,  boroughs,  wards,  petty  sessional 
divisions,  lieutenancy  divisions,  urban  and  rural  sanitary  districts, 
dioceses,  registration  districts,  &c.  And  then,  as  Mr.  Rathbone, 
M.P.,  points  out,'*  these  many  superposed  sets  of  areas  with  inter¬ 
secting  boundaries,  have  their  respective  governing  bodies  with 
authorities  running  into  one  another’s  districts.  Does  any  one  ask 
why  for  each  additional  administration  Parliament  has  established 
a  fresh  set  of  divisions  ?  The  reply  which  suggests  itself  is — To 
preserve  consistency  of  method.  For  this  organized  confusion  cor¬ 
responds  completely  with  that  organized  confusion  which  Parlia¬ 
ment  each  year  increases  by  throwing  on  to  the  heap  of  its  old  Acts 
a  hundred  new  Acts,  the  provisions  of  which  traverse  and  qualify 
in  all  kinds  of  ways  the  provisions  of  multitudinous  Acts  on  to 
which  they  are  thrown  :  the  onus  of  settling  what  is  the  law  being 
left  to  private  persons,  who  lose  their  property  in  getting  judges’ 
interpretations.  And  again,  this  system  of  putting  networks  of 
districts  over  other  networks,  with  their  conflicting  authorities,  is 
quite  consistent  with  the  method  under  which  the  reader  of  the 
Public  Health  Act  of  1872,  who  wishes  to  know  what  are  the 
powers  exercised  over  him,  is  referred  to  26  preceding  Acts  of 
several  classes  and  numerous  dates. f  So,  too,  with  administrative 
inertia.  Continually  there  occur  cases  showing  the  resistance  of 
officialism  to  improvements;  as  by  the  Admiralty  when  use  of  the 
electric  telegraph  was  proposed,  and  the  reply  was — “  We  have  a 
very  good  semaphore  system  ;  ”  or  as  by  the  Post  Office,  which  the 
late  Sir  Charles  Siemens  years  ago  said  had  obstructed  the  em¬ 
ployment  of  improved  methods  of  telegraphing,  and  which  since 
then  has  impeded  the  use  of  the  telephone.  Other  cases  akin  to  the 
case  of  industrial  dwellings,  now  and  then  show  how  the  State 
with  one  hand  increases  evils  which  with  the  other  hand  it  tries  to 
diminish ;  as  when  it  puts  a  duty  on  fire-insurances  and  then  makes 
regulations  for  the  better  putting  out  of  fires  :  dictating,  too,  cer¬ 
tain  modes  of  construction,  which,  as  Captain  Shaw  shows,  entail 
additional  d angers. {  Again,  the  absurdities  of  official  routine,  rigid 

*  The  Nineteenth  Century ,  February,  1883. 

f  “The  Statistics  of  Legislation.”  By  F.  H.  Janson,  Esq.,  F.L.S.,  Vice- 
presidant  of  the  Incorporated  Law  Society.  [Read  before  the  Statistical  Society, 
May,  1873.] 

X  Fire  Surveys  •  or,  a  Summary  of  the  Principles  to  be  observed  in  Esti¬ 
mating  the  Risk  of  Buildings. 


THE  SINS  OF  LEGISLATORS. 


57 


where  it  need  not  be  and  lax  where  it  should  be  rigid,  occasionally 
become  glaring  enough  to  cause  scandals ;  as  when  a  secret  State- 
document  of  importance,  put  into  the  hands  of  an  ill-paid  copying 
clerk  who  was  not  even  in  permanent  Government  employ,  was  made 
public  by  him ;  or  as  when  the  mode  of  making  the  Moorsom  fuse, 
which  was  kept  secret  even  from  our  highest  artillery  officers,  was 
tauoht  to  them  by  the  Russians,  who  had  been  allowed  to  learn  it ; 
or  as  when  a  diagram  showing  the  “  distances  at  which  British  and 
foreign  iron-clads  could  be  perforated  by  our  large  guns,”  communi¬ 
cated  by  an  enterprising  attache  to  his  own  Government,  then 
became  known  “  to  all  the  Governments  of  Europe,”  while  English 
officers  remained  ignorant  of  the  facts.*  So,  too,  with  State-super¬ 
vision.  Guaranteeing  of  quality  by  inspection  has  been  shown,  in 
the  hall-marking  of  silver,  to  be  superfluous,  while  the  silver  tiade 
has  been  decreased  by  it ;  f  and  in  other  cases  it  has  lowered  the 
quality  by  establishing  a  standard  which  it  is  useless  to  exceed : 
instance  the  case  of  the  Cork  butter-market,  where  the  higher 
kinds  are  disadvantaged  in  not  adequately  profiting  by  their  better 
repute  ;  J  or,  instance  the  case  of  herring-branding  (now  optional) 
the  effect  of  which  is  to  put  the  many  inferior  curers  who  just 
reach  the  level  of  official  approval,  on  a  par  with  the  few  better 
ones  who  rise  above  it,  and  so  to  discourage  these.  But .  such 
lessons  pass  unlearned.  Even  where  the  failure  of  inspection  is 
most  glaring,  no  notice  is  taken  of  it;  as  instance  the  terrible 
catastrophe  by  which  a  train  full  of  people  was  destroyed  along 
with  the  Tay  bridge.  Countless  denunciations,  loud  and  unsparing, 
were  vented  against  engineer  and  contractor ;  but  little,  if  any¬ 
thing,  was  said  about  the  Government  officer  from  whom  the  bridge 
received  State-approval.  So,  too,  with  prevention  of  disease.  It 
matters  not  that  under  the  management  or  dictation  of  State- 
agents  some  of  the  worst  evils  occur ;  as  when  the  lives  of  87  wives 
and  children  of  soldiers  are  sacrificed  in  the  ship  Accrington ;  § 
or  as  when  typhoid  fever  and  diphtheria  are  diffused  by  a  State- 
ordered  drainage  system,  as  in  Edinburgh ;  ||  or  as  when  officially- 

*  See  Times ,  October  6,  1874,  where  other  instances  are  given. 

t  The  State  in  its  Relation  to  Trade ,  by  Sir  Thomas  Farrer,  p.  147. 

%  Ibid.,  p.  149.  §  Hansard,  vol.  clvi.  p.  718,  and  vol.  clvii.  p.  4464. 

||  Letter  of  an  Edinburgh  M.D.  in  Times  of  17th  January,  18/6,  verifying 
other  testimonies;  one  of  which  I  had  previously  cited  concerning  Windsor, 
where,  as  in  Edinburgh,  there  was  absolutely  no  typhoid  in  the  undrained  paits, 
while  it  was  very  fatal  in  the  drained  parts. — Study  of  Sociology,  chap,  i.,  notes. 

5 


58 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


enforced  sanitary  appliances,  ever  getting  out  of  order,  increase 
the  evils  they  were  to  decrease.*  Masses  of  such  evidence  leave 
nnabated  the  confidence  with  which  sanitary  inspection  is  invoked 
— invoked,  indeed,  more  than  ever;  as  is  shown  in  the  recent 
that  all  public  schools  should  be  under  the  supervision 
of  health-officers.  Nay,  even  when  the  State  has  manifestly  caused 
the  mischief  complained  of,  faith  in  its  beneficent  agency  is  not  at 
all  diminished ;  as  we  see  in  the  fact  that,  having  a  generation  ago 
authorized,  or  rather  required,  towns  to  establish  drainage  systems 
which  delivered  sewage  into  the  rivers,  and  having  thus  polluted 
the  sources  of  water-supply,  an  outcry  was  raised  against  the 
water-companies  for  the  impurities  of  their  water — an  outcry 
which  continued  after  these  towns  had  been  compelled,  at  vast 
extra  cost,  to  revolutionize  their  drainage  systems.  And  now,  as  the 
only  remedy,  there  follows  the  demand  that  the  State,  by  its  local 
proxies,  shall  undertake  the  whole  business.  The  State’s 
misdoings  become,  as  in  the  case  of  industrial  dwellings,  reasons 
for  praying  it  to  do  more. 

This  worship  of  the  legislature  is,  in  one  respect,  indeed,  less 
excusable  than  the  fetish- worship  to  which  I  have  tacitly  compared 
it.  The  savage  has  the  defence  that  his  fetish  is  silent — does  not 
confess  its  inability.  But  the  civilized  man  persists  in  ascribing  to 
this  idol  made  with  his  own  hands,  powers  which  in  one  way  or 
other  it  confesses  it  has  not  got.  I  do  not  mean  merely  that  the 
debates  daily  tell  us  of  legislative  measures  which  have  done  evil 
instead  of  good;  nor  do  I  mean  merely  that  the  thousands  of  Acts 
of  Parliament  which  repeal  preceding  Acts,  are  so  many  tacit 
admissions  of  failure.  Neither  do  I  refer  only  to  such  quasi- 
governmental  confessions  as  that  contained  in  the  report  of  the 
Poor  Law  Commissioners,  who  said  that — “We  find,  on  the  one 
hand,  that  there  is  scarcely  one  statute  connected  with  the  adminis¬ 
tration  of  public  relief  which  has  produced  the  effect  designed  by 
the  legislature,  and  that  the  majority  of  them  have  created  new 
evils,  and  aggravated  those  which  they  were  intended  to  prevent.,,'f 
I  refer  rather  to  confessions  made  by  statesmen,  and  by  State-depart- 

*  I  say  this  partly  from  personal  knowledge;  having  now  before  me 
memoranda  made  25  years  ago  concerning  such  results  produced  under  my  own 
observation.  Verifying  facts  have  recently  been  given  by  Sir  Kichard  Cross  in 
tbe  Nineteenth,  Century  for  January,  1884,  p.  155. 

t  Nicholl’s  History  of  English  Poor  Law,  ii.  p.  252. 


THE  SINS  OF  LEGISLATORS. 


59 


ments.  Here,  for  example,  in  a  memorial  addressed  to  Mr.  Glad¬ 
stone,  and  adopted  by  a  highly-influential  meeting  held  under  the 
chairmanship  of  the  late  Lord  Lyttelton,  I  read  : — 

“We,  the  undersigned,  Peers,  Members  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
Eatepayers,  and  Inhabitants  of  the  Metropolis,  feeling  strongly  the  truth 
and  force  of  your  statement  made  in  the  House  of  Commons,  in  1866, 
that,  ‘  there  is  still  a  lamentable  and  deplorable  state  of  our  whole  arrange¬ 
ments,  with  regard  to  public  works — vacillation,  uncertainty,  costliness, 
extravagance,  meanness,  and  all  the  conflicting  vices  that  could  be 
enumerated,  are  united  in  our  present  system,’  ”  &c.,  &c.* 

Here,  again,  is  an  example  furnished  by  a  recent  minute  of  the 
Board  of  Trade  (November,  1883),  in  which  it  is  said  that  since 
“  the  Shipwreck  Committee  of  1836  scarcely  a  session  has  passed 
without  some  Act  being  passed  or  some  step  being  taken  by  the 
legislature  or  the  Government  with  this  object”  [prevention  of 
shipwrecks]  ;  and  that  “  the  multiplicity  of  statutes,  which  were 
all  consolidated  into  one  Act  in  1854,  has  again  become  a  scandal 
and  a  reproach :  ”  each  measure  being  passed  because  previous  ones 
had  failed.  And  then  comes  presently  the  confession  that  “  the 
loss  of  life  and  of  ships  has  been  greater  since  1876  than  it  ever 
was  before.”  Meanwhile,  the  cost  of  administration  has  been 
raised  from  £17,000  a  year  to  £73,000  a  year.f 

It  is  surprising  how,  spite  of  better  knowledge,  the  imagination 
is  excited  by  artificial  appliances  used  in  particular  ways.  We  see 
it  all  through  human  history,  from  the  war-paint  with  which  the 
savage  frightens  his  adversary,  down  through  religious  ceremonies 
and  regal  processions,  to  the  robes  of  a  Speaker  and  the  wand  of 
an  officially- dressed  usher.  I  remember  a  child  who,  able  to  look 
with  tolerable  composure  on  a  horrible  cadaverous  mask  while  it 
was  held  in  the  hand,  ran  away  shrieking  when  his  father  put  it 
on.  A  kindred  change  of  feeling  comes  over  constituencies  when, 
from  boroughs  and  counties,  their  members  pass  to  the  Legislative 
Chamber.  While  before  them  as  candidates,  they  are,  by  one  or 
other  party,  jeered  at,  lampooned,  “heckled,”  and  in  all  ways 

*  See  Times,  March  31,  1873. 

f  In  these  paragraphs  are  contained  just  a  few  additional  examples.  Num¬ 
bers  which  I  have  before  given  in  books  and  essays,  will  be  found  in  Social 
Statics  (1851);  “Over-Legislation”  (1853);  “Representative  Government” 
(1857)  ;  “Specialized  Administration”  (1871)  ;  Study  of  Sociology  (1873),  and 
Postscript  to  ditto  (1880)  ;  besides  cases  in  smaller  essays. 


60 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


treated  with  utter  disrespect.  But  as  soon  as  they  assemble  at 
Westminster,  those  against  whom  taunts  and  invectives,  charges 
of  incompetence  and  folly,  had  been  showered  from  press  and 
platform,  excite  unlimited  faith.  Judging  from  the  prayers  made 
to  them,  there  is  nothing  which  their  wisdom  and  their  power 
cannot  compass. 

The  reply  to  all  this  will  doubtless  be  that  nothing  better  than 
guidance  by  “  collective  wisdom  ”  can  be  had — that  the  select  men 
of  the  nation,  led  by  a  re-selected  few,  bring  their  best  powers, 
enlightened  by  all  the  knowledge  of  the  time,  to  bear  on  the  matters 
before  them.  “  What  more  would  you  have  ?  ”  will  be  the  question 
asked  by  most.  '  » 

My  answer  is  that  this  best  knowledge  of  the  time  with  which 
legislators  are  said  to  come  prepared  for  their  duties,  is  a  know¬ 
ledge  of  which  the  greater  part  is  obviously  irrelevant,  and  that 
they  are  blameworthy  for  not  seeing  what  is  the  relevant  know¬ 
ledge.  No  amount  of  the  linguistic  acquirements  by  which  many 
of  them  are  distinguished  will  help  their  judgments  in  the  least ; 
nor  will  they  be  appreciably  helped  by  the  literatures  these  acquire¬ 
ments  open  to  them.  Political  experiences  and  speculations  coming 
from  small  ancient  societies,  through  philosophers  who  assume  that 
war  is  the  normal  state,  that  slavery  is  alike  needful  and  just,  and 
that  women  must  remain  in  perpetual  tutelage,  can  yield  them  but 
small  aid  in  judging  how  Acts  of  Parliament  will  work  in  great 
nations  of  modern  types.  They  may  ponder  on  the  doings  of  all 
the  great  men  by  whom,  according  to  the  Carlylean  theory,  society 
is  framed,  and  they  may  spend  years  over  those  accounts  of  inter¬ 
national  conflicts,  and  treacheries,  and  intrigues,  and  treaties,  which 
fill  historical  works,  without  being  much  nearer  understanding  the 
how  and  the  why  of  social  structures  and  actions,  and  the  ways  in 
which  laws  affect  them.  Nor  does  such  information  as  is  picked  up 
at  the  factory,  on  ’Change,  or  in  the  justice  room,  go  far  towards 
the  required  preparation. 

That  which  is  really  needed  is  a  systematic  study  of  natural 
causation  as  displayed  among  human  beings  socially  aggregated. 
Though  a  distinct  consciousness  of  causation  is  the  last  trait  which 
intellectual  progress  brings  —  though  with  the  savage  a  simple 
mechanical  cause  is  not  conceived  as  such — though  even  among  the 
Greeks  the  flight  of  a  spear  was  thought  of  as  guided  by  a  god — 


THE  SINS  OF  LEGISLATORS. 


61 


though  from  their  times  down  almost  to  our  own,  epidemics 
have°been  habitually  regarded  as  of  supernatural  origin -and 
though  among  social  phenomena,  the  most  complex  of  all,  causal 
relations  may  be  expected  to  continue  longest  unrecognized ;  yet  m 
our  days,  the  existence  of  such  causal  relations  has  become  clear 
enouo-h  to  force  on  all  who  think,  the  inference  that  before  meddling 
with  them  they  should  he  diligently  studied.  The  mere  facts,  now 
familiar  that  there  is  a.  connexion  between  the  numbers  of  births, 
deaths,  and  marriages,  and  the  price  of  corn,  and  that  in  the  same 
society  during  the  same  generation,  the  ratio  of  crime  to  popula¬ 
tion  varies  within  narrow  limits,  should  be  sufficient  to  make  all  see 
that  human  desires,  using  as  guide  such  inti dlect  i is  is  301. with 
them,  act  with  approximate  uniformity.  It  should  be  inferred  that 
among  social  causes,  those  initiated  by  legislation,  similar  y 
operating  with  an  average  regularity,  must  not  only  change  men  s 
actions,  but,  by  consequence,  change  their  natures-probably  in 
ways  not  intended.  There  should  be  recognition  of  the  fact  that 
social  causation,  more  than  all  other  causation,  is  a  fructifying 
causation ;  and  it  should  he  seen  that  indirect  and  remote  effects i  are 
no  less  inevitable  than  proximate  effects.  I  do  not  mean  that  1 ther 
is  denial  of  these  statements  and  inferences.  But  there  are  beliefs 
and  beliefs-some  which  are  held  nominally,  some  which  influence 
conduct  in  small  degrees,  some  which  sway  it  irresistibly  under  a 
circumstances ;  and  unhappily  the  beliefs  of  law-makers  respecting 
causation  in  social  affairs,  are  of  the  superficial  sort.  Let  us  look 
at  some  of  the  truths  which  all  tacitly  admit,  but  which  scarcely 

any  take  deliberate  account  of  in  legislation.  ... 

There  is  the  indisputable  fact  that  each  human  being  is  m 
certain  degree  modifiable  both  physically  and  mentally.  Every 
theory  of  education,  every  discipline,  from  that  of  the  arithmetician 
to  that  of  the  prize-fighter,  every  proposed  reward  for  virtue  or 
punishment  for  vice,  implies  the  belief,  embodied  m  sun  ry  prover  , 
that  the  use  or  disuse  of  each  faculty,  bodily  or  mental,  is  followed 
by  an  adaptive  change  in  it-loss  of  power  or  gam  of  power,  accord- 

inar  to  demand.  ,  . .  .  „ 

There  is  the  fact,  also  in  its  broader  manifestations  umvei  sally 

recognized, that  modifications  of  Nature  in  one  way  or  other  produced, 
are  inheritable.  No  one  denies  that  by  the  accumulation  of  small 
changes,  generation  after  generation,  constitution  fits  itself  to  condi¬ 
tions  ;  so  that  a  climate  which  is  fatal  to  other  races  is  innocuous  to 


62 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


the  adapted  race.  No  one  denies  that  peoples  who  belong  to  the 
same  original  stock  but  have  spread  into  different  habitats  where 
they  have  led  different  lives,  have  acquired  in  course  of  time 
different  aptitudes  and  different  tendencies.  No  one  denies  that 
under  new  conditions  new  national  characters  are  even  now  being 
moulded ;  as  witness  the  Americans.  And  if  no  one  denies  a 
process  of  adaptation  everywhere  and  always  going  on,  it  is  a 
manifest  implication  that  adaptive  modifications  must  be  set  up  by 
every  change  of  social  conditions. 

To  which  there  comes  the  undeniable  corollary  that  every  law 
which  serves  to  alter  men’s  modes  of  action — compelling,  or  restrain¬ 
ing,  or  aiding,  in  new  ways — so  affects  them  as  to  cause  in  course 
of  time  adjustments  of  their  natures.  Beyond  any  immediate 
effect  wrought,  there  is  the  remote  effect,  wholly  ignored  by  most — 
a  re-moulding  of  the  average  character :  a  re-moulding  which  may 
be  of  a  desirable  kind  or  of  an  undesirable  kind,  but  which  in  any 
case  is  the  most  important  of  the  results  to  be  considered. 

Other  general  truths  which  the  citizen,  and  still  more  the 
legislator,  ought  to  contemplate  until  they  become  wrought  into  his 
intellectual  fabric,  are  disclosed  when  we  ask  how  social  activities 
are  produced ;  and  when  we  recognize  the  obvious  answer  that  they 
are  the  aggregate  results  of  the  desires  of  individuals  who  are 
severally  seeking  satisfactions,  and  ordinarily  pursuing  the  ways 
which,  with  their  pre-existing  habits  and  thoughts,  seem  tie 
easiest — following  the  lines  of  least  resistance :  the  truths  of 
political  economy  being  so  many  sequences.  It  needs  no  proving 
that  social  structures  and  social  actions  must  in  some  way  or  other 
be  the  outcome  of  human  emotions  guided  by  ideas — either  those 
of  ancestors  or  those  of  living  men.  And  that  the  right  interpre¬ 
tation  of  social  phenomena  is  to  be  found  in  the  co-operation  of 
these  factors  from  generation  to  generation,  follows  inevitably. 

Such  an  interpretation  soon  brings  us  to  the  inference  that  of 
the  aggregate  results  of  men’s  desires  seeking  their  gratifications, 
those  which  have  prompted  their  private  activities  and  their  spon¬ 
taneous  co-operations,  have  done  much  more  towards  social 
development  than  those  which  have  worked  through  governmental 
agencies.  That  abundant  crops  now  grow  where  once  only  wild 
berries  could  be  gathered,  is  due  to  the  pursuit  of  individual  satis¬ 
factions  through  many  centuries.  The  progress  from  wigwams  to 
good  houses  has  resulted  from  wishes  to  increase  personal  welfare  ; 


THE  SINS  OF  LEGISLATORS. 


63 


and  towns  have  arisen  under  the  like  promptings.  Beginning  with 
traffic  at  gatherings  on  occasions  of  religious  festivals,  the  trading 
organization,  now  so  extensive  and  complex,  has  been  produced 
entirely  by  men’s  efforts  to  achieve  their  private  ends.  Perpetually 
Governments  have  thwarted  and  deranged  the  growth,  hut  have  in 
no  way  furthered  it ;  save  by  partially  discharging  their  proper 
function  and  maintaining  social  order.  So,  too,  with  those  advances 
of  knowledge  and  those  improvements  of  appliances,  by  which 
these  structural  changes  and  these  increasing  activities  have  been 
made  possible.  It  is  not  to  the  State  that  we  owe  the  multitudinous 
useful  inventions  from  the  spade  to  the  telephone ;  it  was  not  the 
State  which  made  possible  extended  navigation  by  a  developed 
astronomy ;  it  was  not  the  State  which  made  the  discoveries  in 
physics,  chemistry,  and  the  rest,  which  guide  modern  manufacturers ; 
it  was  not  the  State  which  devised  the  machinery  for  producing 
fabrics  of  every  kind,  for  transferring  men  and  things  from  place  to 
place,  and  for  ministering  in  a  thousand  ways  to  our  comforts.  The 
world- wide  transactions  conducted  in  merchant’s  offices,  the  rush 
of  traffic  filling  our  streets,  the  retail  distributing  system  which 
brings  everything  within  easy  reach  and  delivers  the  necessaries  of 
life  daily  at  our  doors,  are  not  of  governmental  origin.  All  these 
are  results  of  the  spontaneous  activities  of  citizens,  separate  or 
grouped.  Nay,  to  these  spontaneous  activities  Governments  owe 
the  very  means  of  performing  their  duties.  Divest  the  political 
machinery  of  all  those  aids  which  Science  and  Art  have  yielded 
it — leave  it  with  those  only  which  State-officials  have  invented; 
and  its  functions  would  cease.  The  very  language  in  which  its 
laws  are  registered  and  the  orders  of  its  agents  daily  given,  is 
an  instrument  not  in  the  remotest  degree  due  to  the  legislator ; 
but  is  one  which  has  unawares  grown  up  during  men’s  inter¬ 
course  while  pursuing  their  personal  satisfactions. 

And  then  a  truth  to  which  the  foregoing  one  introduces  us,  is 
that  this  spontaneously-formed  social  organization  is  so  bound 
together  that  you  cannot  act  on  one  part  without  acting  more  or 
less  on  all  parts.  We  see  this  unmistakably  when  a  cotton-famine, 
first  paralyzing  certain  manufacturing  districts  and  then  affecting 
the  doings  of  wholesale  and  retail  distributors  throughout  the 
kingdom,  as  well  as  the  people  they  supply,  goes  on  to  affect  the 
makers  and  distributors,  as  well  as  the  wearers,  of  other  fabrics— 
woollen,  linen,  &c.  Or  we  see  it  when  a  rise  in  the  price  of 


64 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 

coal,  besides  influencing  domestic  life  everywhere,  hinders  the 
greater  part  of  our  industries,  raises  the  prices  of  the  commodities 
produced,  alters  the  consumption  of  them,  and  changes  the  habits 
of  consumers.  W  hat  we  see  clearly  in  these  marked  cases  happens 
in  every  case,  in  sensible  or  in  insensible  ways.  And  manifestly, 
Acts  of  Parliament  are  among  those  factors  which,  beyond  the 
effects  directly  produced,  have  countless  other  effects  of  multi¬ 
tudinous  kinds.  As  I  heard  remarked  by  a  distinguished  professor, 
whose  studies  give  ample  means  of  judging — “When  once  you 
begin  to  interfere  with  the  order  of  Nature  there  is  no  knowing 
where  the  results  will  end.”  And  if  this  is  true  of  that  sub¬ 
human  order  of  Nature  to  which  he  referred,  still  more  is  it  true 
of  that  order  of  Nature  existing  in  the  social  arrangements  pro¬ 
duced  by  aggregated  human  beings. 

And  now  to  carry  home  the  conclusion  that  the  legislator  should 
bring  to  his  business  a  vivid  consciousness  of  these  and  other  such 
broad  truths  concerning  the  human  society  with  which  he  proposes 
to  deal,  let  me  present  somewhat  more  fully  one  of  them  not  yet 
mentioned. 

The  continuance  of  every  higher  species  of  creature  depends  on 
conformity,  now  to  one,  now  to  the  other,  of  two  radically-opposed 
principles.  The  early  lives  of  its  members,  and  the  adult  lives  of 
its  members,  have  to  be  dealt  with  in  contrary  ways.  We  will 
contemplate  them  in  their  natural  order. 

One  of  the  most  familiar  facts  is  that  animals  of  superior  types, 
comparatively  slow  in  reaching  maturity,  are  enabled  when  they 
have  reached  it,  to  give  more  aid  to  their  offspring  than  animals  of 
inferior  types.  The  adults  foster  their  young  during  periods  more 
or  less  prolonged,  while  yet  the  young  are  unable  to  provide  for 
themselves ;  and  it  is  obvious  that  maintenance  of  the  species  can 
be  secured  only  by  a  parental  care  adjusted  to  the  need  consequent 
on  imperfection.  It  requires  no  proving  that  the  blind  unfledged 
hedge-bird,  or  the  young  puppy  even  after  it  has  acquired  sight, 
would  forthwith  die  if  it  had  to  keep  itself  warm  and  obtain  its 
own  food.  The  gratuitous  parental  aid  must  be  great  in  propor¬ 
tion  as  the  young  one  is  of  little  worth,  either  to  itself  or  to  others; 
and  it  may  diminish  as  fast  as,  by  increasing  development,  the 
young  one  acquires  worth,  at  first  for  self-sustentation,  and  by-and- 
by  for  sustentation  of  others.  That  is  to  say,  during  immaturity, 


THE  SINS  OF  LEGISLATORS. 


65 


benefits  received  must  be  inversely  as  tbe  power  or  ability  of  the 
receiver.  Clearly  if  during  this  first  part  of  life  benefits  were 
proportioned  to  merits,  or  rewards  to  deserts,  the  species  would 
disappear  in  a  generation. 

From  this  regime  of  the  family-group,  let  us  turn  to  the  regime 
of  that  larger  group  formed  by  the  adult  members  of  the  species. 
Ask  what  happens  when  the  new  individual,  acquiring  complete 
use  of  its  powers  and  ceasing  to  have  parental  aid,  is  left  to  itself. 
Now  there  comes  into  play  a  principle  just  the  reverse  of  that 
above  described.  Throughout  the  rest  of  its  life,  each  adult  gets 
benefit  in  proportion  to  merit — reward  in  proportion  to  desert: 
merit  and  desert  in  each  case  being  understood  as  ability  to  fulfil 
all  the  requirements  of  life — to  get  food,  to  secure  shelter,  to 
escape  enemies.  Placed  in  competition  with  members  of  its  own 
species  and  in  antagonism  with  members  of  other  species,  it 
dwindles  and  gets  killed  off,  or  thrives  and  propagates,  according 
as  it  is  ill-endowed  or  well-endowed.  Manifestly  an  opposite 
regime ,  could  it  be  maintained,  would,  in  course  of  time,  be  fatal 
to  the  species.  If  the  benefits  received  by  each  individual  were 
proportionate  to  its  inferiority — if,  as  a  consequence,  multiplica¬ 
tion  of  the  inferior  was  furthered  and  multiplication  of  the  supe¬ 
rior  hindered,  progressive  degradation  would  result;  and  eventually 
the  degenerate  species  would  fail  to  hold  its  ground  in  presence 
of  antagonistic  species  and  competing  species. 

The  broad  fact  then,  here  to  be  noted,  is  that  Nature’s  modes 
of  treatment  inside  the  family-group  and  outside  the  family-group, 
are  diametrically  opposed  to  one  another ;  and  that  the  intrusion 
of  either  mode  into  the  sphere  of  the  other,  would  be  fatal  to  the 
species  either  immediately  or  remotely. 

Does  any  one  think  that  the  like  does  not  hold  of  the  human 
species?  He  cannot  deny  that  within  the  human  family,  as  within 
any  inferior  family,  it  would  be  fatal  to  proportion  benefits  to 
merits.  Can  he  assert  that  outside  the  family,  among  adults,  there 
should  not  be  a  proportioning  of  benefits  to  merits  ?  Will  he  con¬ 
tend  that  no  mischief  will  result  if  the  lowly  endowed  are  enabled 
to  thrive  and  multiply  as  much  as,  or  more  than,  the  highly 
endowed  ?  A  society  of  men,  standing  towards  other  societies  in 
relations  of  either  antagonism  or  competition,  may  be  considered 
as  a  species,  or,  more  literally,  as  a  variety  of  a  species ;  and  it  must 
be  true  of  it  as  of  otiier  species  or  varieties,  that  it  will  be  unable 


66 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


to  hold  its  own  in  the  struggle  with  other  societies,  if  it  disad¬ 
vantages  its  superior  units  that  it  may  advantage  its  inferior  units. 
Surely  none  can  fail  to  see  that  were  the  principle  of  family  life  to 
he  adopted  and  fully  carried  out  in  social  life — were  reward  always 
great  in  proportion  as  desert  was  small,  fatal  results  to  the  society 
would  quickly  follow ;  and  if  so,  then  even  a  partial  intrusion  of 
the  family  regime  into  the  regime  of  the  State,  will  be  slowly  fol¬ 
lowed  by  fatal  results.  Society  in  its  corporate  capacity,  cannot 
without  immediate  or  remoter  disaster  interfere  with  the  play  of 
these  opposed  principles  under  which  every  species  has  reached 
such  fitness  for  its  mode  of  life  as  it  possesses,  and  under  which  it 
maintains  that  fitness. 

I  say  advisedly — society  in  its  corporate  capacity:  not  intending 
to  exclude  or  condemn  aid  given  to  the  inferior  by  the  superior  in 
their  individual  capacities.  Though  when  given  so  indiscriminately 
as  to  enable  the  inferior  to  multiply,  such  aid  entails  mischief ;  yet 
in  the  absence  of  aid  given  by  society,  individual  aid,  more  gene¬ 
rally  demanded  than  now,  and  associated  with  a  greater  sense  of 
responsibility,  would,  on  the  average,  be  given  with  the  effect  of 
fostering  the  unfortunate  worthy  rather  than  the  innately  un¬ 
worthy  :  there  being  always,  too,  the  concomitant  social  benefit 
arising  from  culture  of  the  sympathies.  But  all  this  may  be 
admitted  while  asserting  that  the  radical  distinction  between 
family-ethics  and  State-ethics  must  be  maintained ;  and  that  while 
generosity  must  be  the  essential  principle  of  the  one,  justice  must 
be  the  essential  principle  of  the  other — a  rigorous  maintenance  of 
those  normal  relations  among  citizens  under  which  each  gets  in 
return  for  his  labour,  skilled  or  unskilled,  bodily  or  mental,  as 
much  as  is  proved  to  be  its  value  by  the  demand  for  it :  such 
return,  therefore,  as  will  enable  him  to  thrive  and  rear  offspring  in 
proportion  to  the  superiorities  which  make  him  valuable  to  himself 
and  others. 

And  yet,  notwithstanding  the  conspicnousness  of  these  truths, 
which  should  strike  every  one  who  leaves  his  lexicons,  and  his  law- 
deeds,  and  his  ledgers,  and  looks  abroad  into  that  natural  order  of 
things  under  which  we  exist,  and  to  which  we  must  conform,  there 
is  continual  advocacy  of  paternal  government.  The  intrusion  of 
family-ethics  into  the  ethics  of  the  State,  instead  of  being  regarded 
as  socially  injurious,  is  more  and  more  demanded  as  the  only 
efficient  means  to  social  benefit.  So  far  has  this  delusion  now  gone, 


THE  SINS  OF  LEGISLATORS. 


67 


that  it  vitiates  the  beliefs  of  those  who  might,  more  than  all  others, 
be  thought  safe  from  it.  In  the  essay  to  which  the  Cobden  Club 
awarded  its  prize  in  1880,  there  occurs  the  assertion  that  “the 
truth  of  Free  Trade  is  clouded  over  by  the  laissez-faire  fallacy 
and  we  are  told  that  “  we  need  a  great  deal  more  paternal  govern¬ 
ment — that  bugbear  of  the  old  economists.”* 

Vitally  important  as  is  the  truth  above  insisted  upon,  since 
acceptance  or  rejection  of  it  affects  the  entire  fabric  of  political 
conclusions  formed,  I  may  be  excused  if  I  emphasize  it  by  here 
quoting  certain  passages  contained  in  a  work  I  published  in  1851 : 
premising,  only,  that  the  reader  must  not  hold  me  committed  to 
such  teleological  implications  as  they  contain.  After  describing 
“  that  state  of  universal  warfare  maintained  throughout  the  lower 
creation,”  and  showing  that  an  average  of  benefit  results  from  it,  I 
have  continued  thus  : — 

“Note  further,  that  their  carnivorous  enemies  not  only  remove  from 
herbivorous  herds  individuals  past  their  prime,  but  also  weed  out  the 
sickly,  the  malformed,  and  the  least  fleet  or  powerful.  By  the  aid  of 
which  purifying  process,  as  well  as  by  the  fighting  so  universal  in  the 
pairing  season,  all  vitiation  of  the  race  through  the  multiplication  of  its 
inferior  samples  is  prevented  ;  and  the  maintenance  of  a  constitution  com¬ 
pletely  adapted  to  surrounding  conditions,  and  therefore  most  productive 
of  happiness,  is  ensured. 

“  The  development  of  the  higher  creation  is  a  progress  towards  a  form 
of  being  capable  of  a  happiness  undiminished  by  these  drawbacks.  It  is 
in  the  human  race  that  the  consummation  is  to  be  accomplished.  Civili¬ 
zation  is  the  last  stage  of  its  accomplishment.  And  the  ideal  man  is  the 
man  in  whom  all  the  conditions  of  that  accomplishment  are  fulfilled. 
Meanwhile,  the  well-being  of  existing  humanity,  and  the  unfolding  of  it 
into  this  ultimate  perfection,  are  both  secured  by  that  same  beneficient, 
though  severe  discipline,  to  which  the  animate  creation  at  large  is  subject : 
a  discipline  which  is  pitiless  in  the  working  out  of  good :  a  felicity-pursuing 
law  which  never  swerves  for  the  avoidance  of  partial  and  temporary  suf¬ 
fering.  The  poverty  of  the  incapable,  the  distresses  that  come  upon  the 
imprudent,  the  starvation  of  the  idle,  and  those  shoulderings  aside  of  the 
weak  by  the  strong,  which  leave  so  many  ‘  in  shallows  and  in  miseries,’  are 
the  decrees  of  a  large,  far-seeing  benevolence.” 

“  To  become  fit  for  the  social  state,  man  has  not  only  to  lose  his  savageness, 

*  On  the  Value  of  Political  Economy  to  Mankind.  By  A.  N.  Cumming, 
pp.  47,  48. 


68 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


but  he  has  to  acquire  the  capacities  needful  for  civilized  life.  Power  of 
application  must  be  developed  ;  such  modification  of  the  intellect  as  shall 
qualify  it  for  its  new  tasks  must  take  place ;  and,  above  all,  there  must 
be  gained  the  ability  to  sacrifice  a  small  immediate  gratification  for  a 
future  gieat  one.  The  state  of  transition  will  of  course  be  an  unhappy 
state.  Misery  inevitably  results  from  incongruity  between  constitution 
and  conditions.  All  these  evils  which  afflict  us,  and  seem  to  the  uninitiated 
the  obvious  consequences  of  this  or  that  removable  cause,  are  unavoidable 
attendants  on  the  adaptation  now  in  progress.  Humanity  is  being  pressed 
against  the  inexorable  necessities  of  its  new  position— is  being  "moulded 
into  harmony  with  them,  and  has  to  bear  the  resulting  unhappiness  as 
best  it  can.  The  process  must  be  undergone,  and  the  sufferings  must  be 
endured.  No  power  on  earth,  no  cunningly-devised  laws  of  statesmen,  no 
wor  d-rectifying  schemes  of  the  humane,  no  communist  panaceas,  no 
reforms  that  men  ever  did  broach  or  ever  will  broach,  can  diminish  them 
one  jot.  Intensified  they  may  be,  and  are;  and  in  preventing  their  inten¬ 
sification,  the  philanthropic  will  find  ample  scope  for  exertion.  But  there 
is  bound  up  with  the  change  a  normal  amount  of  suffering,  which  cannot 
be  lessened  without  altering  the  very  laws  of  life.” 

******* 

“  Of  course,  in  so  far  as  the  severity  of  this  process  is  mitigated  by  the 

•j  •  ,  j  i«  ^  *  her,  it  is  proper  that  it  should  be 

mitigated  :  albeit  there  is  unquestionably  harm  done  when  sympathy  is 

shown,  without  any  regard  to  ultimate  results.  But  the  drawbacks  hence 
arising  are  nothing  like  commensurate  with  the  benefits  otherwise  con¬ 
ferred.  Only  when  this  sympathy  prompts  to  a  breach  of  equity— only 
when  it  originates  an  interference  forbidden  by  the  law  of  equal  freedom 
—only  when,  by  so  doing,  it  suspends  in  some  particular  department  of 
hie  the.  relationship  between  constitution  and  conditions,  does  it  work 
pure  evil. .  Then,  however,  it  defeats  its  own  end.  Instead  of  diminishing 
suffering,  it  eventually  increases  it.  It  favours  the  multiplication  of  those 
worst  fitted  for  existence,  and,  by  consequence,  hinders  the  multiplication 
of  those  best  fitted  for  existence— leaving,  as  it  does,  less  room  for  them 
It  tends  to  fill  the  world  with  those  to  whom  life  will  bring  most  pain,  and 
tends  to  keep  out  of  it  those  to  whom  life  will  bring  most  pleasure.  It 
mflicts  positive  misery,  and  prevents  positive  happiness.”— Social  Statics, 
pp.  322-5  and  pp.  380-1  (edition  of  1851). 


The  lapse  of  a  third  of  a  century  since  these  passages  were  pub¬ 
lished,  has  brought  me  no  reason  for  retreating  from  the  position 
taken  up  in  them.  Contrariwise,  it  has  brought  a  vast  amount  of 
evidence  strengthening  that  position.  The  beneficial  results  of  the 
survival  of  the  fittest,  prove  to  be  immeasurably  greater  than  those 
above  indicated.  The  process  of  “natural  selection,”  as  Mr.  Darwin 


THE  SINS  OF  LEGISLATORS. 


69 


called  it,  co-operating  with  a  tendency  to  variation  and  to  inheri¬ 
tance  of  variations,  he  has  shown  to  be  a  chief  cause  (though  not, 

I  believe,  the  sole  cause)  of  that  evolution  through  which  all  living 
things,  beginning  with  the  lowest  and  diverging  and  re-diveiging 
as  they  evolved,  have  reached  their  present  degrees  of  organization 
and  adaptation  to  their  modes  of  life.  So  familiar  has  this  truth 
become  that  some  apology  seems  needed  for  naming  it.  And  yet, 
strange  to  say,  now  that  this  truth  is  recognized  by  most  cultivated 
people — now  that  the  beneficent  working  of  the  survival  of  the 
fittest  has  been  so  impressed  on  them  that,  much  more  than  people 
in  past  times,  they  might  be  expected  to  hesitate  before  neutralizing 
its  action — now  more  than  ever  before  in  the  history  of  the  world, 
are  they  doing  all  they  can  to  further  survival  of  the  unfittest ! 

But  the  postulate  that  men  are  rational  beings,  continually  leads 
one  to  draw  inferences  which  prove  to  be  extremely  wide  of  the 
mark.* 

“  Yes  truly ;  your  principle  is  derived  from  the  lives  of  brutes, 
and  is  a  brutal  principle.  You  will  not  persuade  me  that  men  are 
to  be  under  the  discipline  which  animals  are  under.  I  care  nothing 
for  your  natural-bistory  arguments.  My  conscience  shows  me  that 
the  feeble  and  the  suffering  must  be  helped ;  and  if  selfish  people 
won’t  help  them,  they  must  be  forced  by  law  to  help  them.  Don  t 
tell  me  that  the  milk  of  human  kindness  is  to  be  reserved  for  the 
relations  between  individuals,  and  that  Governments  must  be  the 
administrators  of  nothing  but  hard  justice.  Every  man  With 

*  The  saying  of  Emerson  that  most  people  can  understand  a  principle  only 
when  its  light  fads  on  a  fact,  induces  me  here  to  cite  a  fact  which  may  carry 
home  the  above  principle  to  those  on  whom,  in  its  abstract  form,  it  will  produce  no 
effect.  It  rarely  happens  that  the  amount  of  evil  caused  by  fostering  the  vicious 
and  good-for-nothing  can  be  estimated.  But  in  America,  at  a  meeting  of  the 
States  Charities  Aid  Association,  held  on  December  18, 1874,  a  starthng  instance 
was  given  in  detail  by  Dr.  Harris.  It  was  furnished  by  a  county  on  the  Upper 
Hudson,  remarkable  for  the  ratio  of  crime  and  poverty  to  population.  Gene¬ 
rations  ago  there  had  existed  a  certain  “  gutter-child,”  as  she  would  be  here  called, 
known  as  “  Margaret,”  who  proved  to  be  the  prolific  mother  of  a  prolific  race. 
Besides  great  numbers  of  idiots,  imbeciles,  drunkards,  lunatics,  paupers,  and  pros¬ 
titutes,  “  the  county  records  show  two  hundred  of  her  descendants  who  have 
been  criminals.”  Was  it  kindness  or  cruelty  which,  generation  after  generation, 
enabled  these  to  muliply  and  become  an  increasing  curse  to  the  society  around 
them  ?  [For  particulars  see  The  Juices :  a  Study  in  Crime ,  Pauperism ,  Dis¬ 
ease  and  Eereaity.  By  It.  L.  Dugdale.  New  York  :  Putnams.j 


70 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


sympathy  in  him  must  feel  that  hunger  and  pain  and  squalor  must 

be  prevented ;  and  that  if  private  agencies  do  not  suffice,  then  public 
agencies  must  be  established.”  r 

Such  is  the  kind  of  response  which  I  expect  to  be  made  by  nine 
out  of  ten.  In  some  of  them  it  will  doubtless  result  from  a  fellow- 
eeling  so  acute  that  they  cannot  contemplate  human  misery 
without  an  impatience  which  excludes  all  thought  of  remote 
results.  Concerning  the  susceptibilities  of  the  rest,  we  may,  how¬ 
ever,  be  somewhat  sceptical.  Persons  who,  now  in  this  case  and 
now  in  that,  are  angry  if,  to  maintain  our  supposed  national  “in- 
terests  or  national  "prestige”  those  in  authority  do  not  promptly 
send  out  some  thousands  of  men  to  be  partially  destroyed  while 
destroying  other  thousands  of  men  whose  intentions  we  suspect  or 
whose  institutions  we  think  dangerous  to  us,  or  whose  territory  our 
colonists  want,  cannot  after  all  be  so  tender  in  feeling  that  contem¬ 
plating  the  hardships  of  the  poor  is  intolerable  to  them.  Little 
a  jmration  need  be  felt  for  the  professed  sympathies  of  people  who 
urge  on  a  policy  which  breaks  up  progressing  societies;  and  who 
then  look  on  with  cynical  indifference  at  the  weltering  confusion 

6  behind,  with  all  its  entailed  suffering  and  death.  Those  who 
when  Boers  asserting  their  independence  successfully  resisted  us’ 
were  angry  because  British  “honour ’’was  not  maintained  by  fight¬ 
ing  to  aveng-e  a  defeat,  at  the  cost  of  more  mortality  and  misery  to 
our  own  soldiers  and  their  antagonists,  cannot  have  so  much  “en- 

lusiasm  of  humanity  ”  as  protests  like  that  indicated  above  would 
ea  one  o  expect.  Indeed,  along  with  this  sensitiveness  which  they 

pro  ess  will  not  let  them  look  with  patience  on  the  pains  of  “the 
battle  of  life  as  it  quietly  goes  on  around,  they  appear  to  have  a 
callousness  winch  not  only  tolerates  but  enjoys  contemplating  the 
pains  of  battles  of  the  literal  kind  ;  as  one  sees  in  the  demand  for 
illustrated  papers  containing  scenes  of  carnage,  and  in  the  greedi¬ 
ness  with  which  detailed  accounts  of  bloody  engagements  are  read. 

wt7ir?nSOnablj  haVe  °Ur  d°ubts  about  men  whose  feelings  are 
such  that  they  cannot  bear  the  thought  of  hardships  borne,  mostly 

7  tjejdru- aDd  the  lmPr<mdent>  and  who,  nevertheless,  have  de¬ 
manded  thirty-one  editions  of  “The  Fifteen  Decisive  Battles  of  the 

or  d,  m  which  they  may  revel  in  accounts  of  slaughter.  Nay,  even 
s  i  more  remarkable  is  the  contrast  between  the  professed  tender, 
heartedness  and  the  actual  hard-heartedness  of  those  who  would 
reverse  the  normal  course  of  things  that  immediate  miseries  may 


THE  SINS  OF  LEGISLATORS. 


71 


be  prevented,  even  at  tlie  cost  of  greater  miseries  hereafter  pio- 
duced.  For  on  other  occasions  yon  may  hear  them,  with  ntter  dis¬ 
regard  of  bloodshed  and  death,  contend  that  in  the  interests  of 
humanity  at  large  it  is  well  that  the  inferior  races  should  be  ex¬ 
terminated  and  their  places  occupied  by  the  superior  races.  So 
that,  marvellous  to  relate,  though  they  cannot  think  with  calmness 
of  the  evils  accompanying  the  struggle  for  existence  as  it  is  carried 
on  without  violence  among  individuals  in  their  own  society,  they 
contemplate  with  contented  equanimity  such  evils  in  their  intense 
and  wholesale  forms,  when  inflicted  by  fire  and  sword  on  entire 
communities.  Not  worthy  of  much  respect  then,  as  it  seems  to  me, 
is  this  generous  consideration  of  the  inferior  at  home  which  is 
accompanied  by  unscrupulous  sacrifice  of  the  inferior  abroad. 

Still  less  respectable  appears  this  extreme  concern  for  those  of 
our  own  blood  which  goes  along  with  utter  unconcern  for  those 
of  other  blood,  when  we  observe  its  methods.  Did  it  prompt  per¬ 
sonal  effort  to  relieve  the  suffering,  it  would  rightly  receive  approv¬ 
ing  recognition.  Were  the  many  who  express  this  cheap  pity  like 
the  few  who  patiently,  week  after  week  and  year  after  year,  devote 
large  parts  of  their  time  to  helping  and  encouraging,  and  occasion¬ 
ally  amusing,  those  who,  in  some  cases  by  ill-fortune  and  in  other 
cases  by  incapacity  or  misconduct,  are  brought  .  to  lives  of 
hardship,  they  would  be  worthy  of  unqualified  admiration.  The 
more  there  are  of  men  and  women  who  help  the  poor  to  help 
themselves — the  more  there  are  of  those  whose  sympathy,  is 
exhibited  directly  and  not  by  proxy,  the  more  we  may  rejoice. 
But  the  immense  majority  of  the  persons  who  wish  to  mitigate  by 
law  the  miseries  of  the  unsuccessful  and  the  reckless,  propose  to 
do  this  in  small  measure  at  their  own  cost  and  mainly  at  the  cost 
of  others  —  sometimes  with  their  assent  but  mostly  without. 
More  than  this  is  true ;  for  those  who  are  to  be  forced  to  do  so 
much  for  the  distressed,  often  equally  or  more  require  something 
doing  for  them.  The  deserving  poor  are  among  those  who  are 
burdened  to  pay  the  costs  of  caring  for  the  undeserving  poor.  As, 
under  the  old  Poor  Law,  the  diligent  and  provident  labourer  had 
to  pay  that  the  good-for-nothings  might  not  suffer,  until 
frequently  under  this  extra  burden  he  broke  down  and  himself 
took  refuge  in  the  workhouse— as,  at  present,  it  is  admitted  that 
the  total  rates  levied  in  large  towns  for  all  public  purposes,  have 
now  reached  such  a  height  that  they  “cannot  be  exceeded 


72 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


without  inflicting  great  hardship  on  the  small  shopkeepers  and 
artisans,  who  already  find  it  difficult  enough  to  keep  themselves 
free  from  the  pauper  taint;”*  so  in  all  cases,  the  policy  is  one 
which  intensifies  the  pains  of  those  most  deserving  of  pity,  that 
the  pains  of  those  least  deserving  of  pity  may  be  mitigated.  In 
short,  men  who  are  so  sympathetic  that  they  cannot  allow  the 
struggle  for  existence  to  bring  on  the  unworthy  the  sufferings 
consequent  on  their  incapacity  or  misconduct,  are  so  un¬ 
sympathetic  that  they  can,  without  hesitation,  make  the  struggle 
for  existence  harder  for  the  worthy,  and  inflict  on  them  and  their 
children  artificial  evils  in  addition  to  the  natural  evils  they  have 
to  bear  ! 

And  here  we  are  brought  round  to  our  original  topic — the  sins 
of  legislators.  Here  there  comes  clearly  before  us  the  commonest  of 
the  transgressions  which  rulers  commit — a  transgression  so  common, 
and  so  sanctified  by  custom,  that  no  one  imagines  it  to  be  a  trans¬ 
gression.  Here  we  see  that,  as  indicated  at  the  outset,  Government, 
begotten  of  aggression  and  by  aggression,  ever  continues  to  betray 
its  original  nature  by  its  aggressiveness ;  and  that  even  what  on 
its  nearer  face  seems  beneficence  only,  shows,  on  its  remoter  face, 
not  a  little  maleficence — kindness  at  the  cost  of  cruelty.  For  is  it 
not  cruel  to  increase  the  sufferings  of  the  better  that  the  sufferings 
of  the  worse  may  be  decreased  ? 

It  is,  indeed,  marvellous  how  readily  we  let  ourselves  be  deceived 
by  words  and  phrases  which  suggest  one  aspect  of  the  facts  while 
leaving  the  opposite  aspect  unsuggested.  A  good  illustration  of 
this,  and  one  germane  to  the  immediate  question,  is  seen  in  the  use 
of  the  words  “  protection  ”  and  “  protectionist  ”  by  the  antagonists 
of  free-trade,  and  in  the  tacit  admission  of  its  propriety  by  free¬ 
traders.  While  the  one  party  has  habitually  ignored,  the  other 
party  has  habitually  failed  to  emphasize,  the  truth  that  this  so- 
called  protection  always  involves  aggression ;  and  that  the  name 
aggressionist  ought  to  be  substituted  for  the  name  protectionist. 
For  nothidg  can  be  more  certain  than  that  if,  to  maintain  A’s 
profit,  B  is  forbidden  to  buy  of  C,  or  is  fined  to  the  extent  of  the 
duty  if  he  buys  of  C,  B  is  aggresssed  upon  that  A  may  be 
“  protected.”  Hay,  “  aggressionists  ”  is  a  title  doubly  more 
applicable  to  the  anti-free-traders  than  is  the  euphemistic  title 
*  Hr.  Chamberlain  in  Fortnightly  Review,  December,  1883,  p.  772. 


THE  SINS  OF  LEGISLATORS. 


73 


“  protectionists ;  ”  since,  that  one  producer  may  gain,  ten  con¬ 
sumers  are  fleeced. 

Now  just  the  like  confusion  of  ideas,  caused  hy  looking  at  one 
face  only  of  the  transaction,  may  he  traced  throughout  all  the 
legislation  which  forcibly  takes  the  property  of  this  man  for  the 
purpose  of  giving  gratis  benefits  to  that  man.  Habitually  when 
one  of  the  numerous  measures  thus  characterized  is  discussed,  the 
dominant  thought  is  concerning  the  pitiable  Jones  who  is  to  be 
protected  against  some  evil ;  while  no  thought  is  given  to  the 
hard-working  Brown  who  is  aggressed  upon,  often  much  more  to 
be  pitied.  Money  is  exacted  (either  directly  or  through  raised 
rent)  from  the  huckster  who  only  by  extreme  pinching  can  pay 
her  way,  from  the  mason  thrown  out  of  work  by  a  strike,  from 
the  mechanic  whose  savings  are  melting  away  during  an  illness, 
from  the  widow  who  washes  or  sews  from  dawn  to  dark  to  feed 
her  fatherless  little  ones ;  and  all  that  the  dissolute  may  be  saved 
from  hunger,  that  the  children  of  less  impoverished  neighbours 
may  have  cheap  lessons,  and  that  various  people,  mostly  better  off, 
may  read  newspapers  and  novels  for  nothing!  The  error  of 
nomenclature  is,  in  one  respect,  more  misleading  than  that  which 
allows  aggressionists  to  be  called  protectionists ;  for,  as  just 
shown,  protection  of  the  vicious  poor  involves  aggression  on  the 
virtuous  poor.  Doubtless  it  is  true  that  the  greater  part  of  the 
money  exacted  comes  from  those  who  are  relatively  well-off.  But 
this  is  no  consolation  to  the  ill-off  from  whom  the  rest  is  exacted. 
Nay,  if  the  comparison  be  made  between  the  pressures  borne  by 
the  two  classes  respectively,  it  becomes  manifest  that  the  case  is 
even  worse  than  at  first  appears ;  for  while  to  the  well-off  the 
exaction  means  loss  of  luxuries,  to  the  ill-off  it  means  loss  of 
necessaries. 

And  now  see  the  Nemesis  which  is  threatening  to  follow  this 
chronic  sin  of  legislators.  They  and  their  class,  in  common  with 
all  owners  of  property,  are  in  danger  of  suffering  from  a  sweeping 
application  of  that  general  principle  practically  asserted  by  each 
of  these  confiscating  Acts  of  Parliament.  For  what  is  the  tacit 
assumption  on  which  such  Acts  proceed  ?  It  is  the  assumption 
that  no  man  has  any  claim  to  his  property,  not  even  to  that  which 
he  has  earned  by  the  sweat  of  his  brow,  save  by  permission  of  the 
community ;  and  that  the  community  may  cancel  the  claim  to  any 

extent  it  thinks  fit.  No  defence  can  be  made  for  this  appropria- 
6 


74 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


tion  of  A’s  possessions  for  the  benefit  of  B,  save  one  which  sets 
out  with  the  postulate  that  society  as  a  whole  has  an  absolute 
right  over  the  possessions  of  each  member.  And  now  this 
doctrine,  which  has  been  tacitly  assumed,  is  being  openly  pro¬ 
claimed.  Mr.  George  and  his  friends,  Mr.  Hyndman  and  his 
supporters,  are  pushing  the  theory  to  its  logical  issue.  They  have 
been  instructed  by  examples,  yearly  increasing  in  number,  that 
the  individual  has  no  rights  but  what  the  community  may 
equitably  over-ride  ;  and  they  are  now  saying — “  It  shall  go  hard 
but  we  will  better  the  instruction,”  and  over-ride  individual  rights 
altogether. 

Legislative  misdeeds  of  the  classes  above  indicated  are  in 
large  measure  explained,  and  reprobation  of  them  mitigated,  when 
we  look  at  the  matter  from  afar  off.  They  have  their  root  in  the 
error  that  society  is  a  manufacture ;  whereas  it  is  a  growth. 
Neither  the  culture  of  past  times  nor  the  culture  of  the  present 
time,  has  given  to  any  considerable  number  of  people  a  scientific 
conception  of  a  society — a  conception  of  it  as  having  a  natural 
structure  in  which  all  its  institutions,  governmental,  religious, 
industrial,  commercial,  &c.  &c.,  are  inter-dependently  bound — a 
structure  which  is  in  a  sense  organic.  Or  if  such  a  conception  is 
nominally  entertained,  it  is  not  entertained  in  such  way  as  to  be 
operative  on  conduct.  Contrariwise,  incorporated  humanity  is 
very  commonly  thought  of  as  though  it  were  like  so  much  dough 
which  the  cook  can  mould  as  she  pleases  into  pie-crust,  or  puff,  or 
tartlet.  The  communist  shows  us  unmistakably  that  he  thinks  of 
the  body  politic  as  admitting  of  being  shaped  thus  or  thus  at  will ; 
and  the  tacit  implication  of  many  Acts  of  Parliament  is  that 
aggregated  men,  twisted  into  this  or  that  arrangement,  will 
remain  as  intended. 

It  may  indeed  be  said  that  even  irrespective  of  this  erroneous 
conception  of  a  society  as  a  plastic  mass  instead  of  as  an  organized 
body,  facts  forced  on  his  attention  hour  by  hour  should  make 
every  one  sceptical  as  to  the  success  of  this  or  that  proposed  way 
of  changing  a  people’s  actions.  Alike  to  the  citizen  and  to  the 
legislator,  home-experiences  daily  supply  proofs  that  the  conduct 
of  human  beings  baulks  calculation.  He  has  given  up  the  thought 
of  managing  his  wife  and  lets  her  manage  him.  Children  on 
whom  he  has  tried  now  reprimand,  now  punishment,  now  suasion, 


THE  SINS  OF  LEGISLATORS. 


75 


now  reward,  do  not  respond  satisfactorily  to  any  method ;  and  no 
expostulation  prevents  their  mother  from  treating  them  ^n  ways 
he  thinks  mischievous.  So,  too,  his  dealings  with  his  servants, 
whether  by  reasoning  or  by  scolding,  rarely  succeed  for  long : 
the  falling  short  of  attention,  or  punctuality,  or  cleanliness,  or 
sobriety,  leads  to  constant  changes.  Yet,  difficult  as  he  finds  it  to 
deal  with  humanity  in  detail,  he  is  confident  of  his  ability  to  deal 
with  embodied  humanity.  Citizens,  not  one-thousandth  of  whom 
he  knows,  not  one-hundredth  of  whom  he  ever  saw,  and  the  great 
mass  of  whom  belong  to  classes  having  habits  and  modes  of 
thought  of  which  he  has  but  dim  notions,  he  feels  sure  will  act 
in  certain  ways  he  foresees,  and  fulfil  ends  he  wishes. .  Is  there 
not  a  marvellous  incongruity  between  premises  and  conclusion  ? 

One  might  have  expected  that  whether  they  observed  the 
implications  of  these  domestic  failures,  or  whether  they  con¬ 
templated  in  every  newspaper  the  indications  of  a  social  life  too 
vast,  too  varied,  too  involved,  to  be  even  vaguely  pictured  in 
thought,  men  would  have  entered  on  the  business  of  law-making 
with  the  greatest  hesitation.  Yet  in  this  more  than  in  anything 
else  do  they  show  a  confident  readiness.  Nowhere  is  there  so 
astounding  a  contrast  between  the  difficulty  of  the  task  and  the 
unpreparedness  of  those  who  undertake  it.  Unquestionably 
among  monstrous  beliefs  one  of  the  most  monstrous  is  that  while 
for  a  simple  handicraft,  such  as  shoe-making,  a  long  apprenticeship 
is  needful,  the  sole  thing  which  needs  no  apprenticeship  is  making 
a  nation’s  laws  ! 

Summing  up  the  results  of  the  discussion,  may  we  not  reason¬ 
ably  say  that  there  lie  before  the  legislator  several  open  secrets, 
which  yet  are  so  open  that  they  ought  not  to  remain  secrets  to  one 
who  undertakes  the  vast  and  terrible  responsibility  of  dealing 
with  millions  upon  millions  of  human  beings  by  measures  which, 
if  they  do  not  conduce  to  their  happiness,  will  increase  their 
miseries  and  accelerate  their  deaths  ? 

There  is  first  of  all  the  undeniable  truth,  conspicuous  and  yet 
absolutely  ignored,  that  there  are  no  phenomena  which  a  society 
presents  but  what  jiave  their  origins  in  the  phenomena  of  indi¬ 
vidual  human  life,  which  again  have  their  roots  in  vital  phe¬ 
nomena  at  large.  And  there  is  the  inevitable  implication  that 
unless  these  vital  phenomena,  bodily  and  mental,  are  chaotic  in 


76 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE, 


their  relations  (a  supposition  excluded  by  the  very  maintenance  of 
life)  the  resulting  phenomena  cannot  be  wholly  chaotic:  there 
must  be  some  kind  of  order  in  the  phenomena  which  grow  out  of 
them  when  associated  human  beings  have  to  co-operate.  Evidently, 
then,  when  one  who  hag  not  studied  such  resulting  phenomena  of 
social  order,  undertakes  to  regulate  society,  he  is  pretty  certain  to 
work  mischiefs. 

In  the  second  place,  apart  from  a  priori  reasoning,  this  con¬ 
clusion  should  be  forced  on  the  legislator  by  comparisons  of 
societies.  It  ought  to  be  sufficiently  manifest  that  before  med¬ 
dling  with  the  details  of  social  organization,  inquiry  should  be 
made  whether  social  organization  has  a-  natural  history  ;  and  that 
to  answer  this  inquiry,  it  would  be  well,  setting  out  with  the 
simplest  societies,  to  see  in  what  respects  social  structures  agree. 
Such  comparative  sociology,  pursued  to  a  very  small  extent,  shows 
a  substantial  uniformity  of  genesis.  The  habitual  existence  of 
chieftainship,  and  the  establishment  of  chiefly  authority  by  war ; 
the  rise  everywhere  of  the  medicine  man  and  priest ;  the  presence 
of  a  cult  having  in  all  places  the  same  fundamental  traits;  the 
traces  of  division  of  labour,  early  displayed,  which  gradually 
become  more  marked;  and  the  various  complications,  political, 
ecclesiastical,  industrial,  which  arise  as  groups  are  compounded 
and  re-compounded  by  war ;  quickly  prove  to  any  who  compares 
them  that,  apart  from  all  their  special  differences,  societies  have 
general  resemblances  in  their  modes  of  origin  and  development. 
They  present  traits  of  structure  showing  that  social  organization 
has  laws  which  over-ride  individual  wills ;  and  laws  the  disregard 
of  which  must  be  fraught  with  disaster. 

And  then,  in  the  third  place,  thero  is  that  mass  of  guiding 
information  yielded  by  the  records  of  legislation  in  our  own 
country  and  in  other  countries,  which  still  more  obviously  demands 
attention.  Here  and  elsewhere,  attempts  of  multitudinous  kinds, 
made  by  kings  and  statesmen,  have  failed  to  do  the  good  intended 
and  have  worked  unexpected  evils.  Century  after  century  new 
measures  like  the  old  ones,  and  other  measures  akin  in  principle, 
have  again  disappointed  hopes  and  again  brought  disaster.  And 
yet  it  is  thought  neither  by  electors  nor  by  those  they  elect,  that 
there  is  any  need  for  systematic  study  of  that  law-making  which 
in  bygone  ages  went  on  working  the  ill-being  of  the  people  when 
it  tried  to  achieve  their  weJl-being.  Surely  there  can  be  no  fitness 


THE  SINS  OF  LEGISLATORS.  77 

for  legislative  functions  without  wide  knowledge  of  those  legislative 
experiences  which  the  past  has  bequeathed. 

Reverting,  then,  to  the  analogy  drawn  at  the  outset,  we  must 
say  that  the  legislator  is  morally  blameless  or  morally  blameworthy, 
according  as  he  has  or  has  not  acquainted  himself  with  these 
several  classes  of  facts.  A  physician  who,  after  years  of  study, 
has  gained  a  competent  knowledge  of  physiology,  pathology  and 
therapeutics,  is  not  held  criminally  responsible  if  a  man  dies  under 
his  treatment :  he  has  prepared  himself  as  well  as  he  can,  and  has 
acted  to  the  best  of  his  judgment.  Similarly  the  legislator  whose 
measures  produce  evil  instead  of  good,  notwithstanding  the  exten¬ 
sive  and  methodic  inquiries  which  helped  him  to  decide,  cannot  be 
held  to  have  committed  more  than  an  error  of  reasoning.  Contrari¬ 
wise,  the  legislator  who  is  wholly  or  in  great  part  uninformed 
concerning  these  masses  of  facts  which  he  must  examine  before  his 
opinion  on  a  proposed  law  can  be  of  any  value,  and  who  nevertheless 
helps  to  pass  that  law,  can  no  more  be  absolved  if  misery  and 
mortality  result,  than  the  journeyman  druggist  can  be  absolved 
when  death  is  caused  by  the  medicine  he  ignorantly  prescribes. 


THE  GBEAT  POLITICAL  SUPEESTITION. 


The  great  political  superstition  of  tlie  past  was  the  divine  right 
of  kings.  The  great  political  superstition  of  the  present  is  the 
divine  right  of  parliaments.  The  oil  of  anointing  seems  unawares 
to  have  dripped  from  the  head  of  the  one  on  to  the  heads  of  the 
many,  and  given  sacredness  to  them  also  and  to  their  decrees. 

However  irrational  we  may  think  the  earlier  of  these  beliefb, 
we  must  admit  that  it  was  more  consistent  than  is  the  latter. 
Whether  we  go  hack  to  times  when  the  king  was  a  god,  or  to 
times  when  he  was  a  descendant  of  a  god,  or  to  times  when  he 
was  god-appointed,  we  see  good  reason  for  passive  obedience  to  his 
will.  When,  as  under  Louis  XIV.,  theologians  like  Bossuet  taught 
that  kings  “  are  gods,  and  share  in  a  manner  the  Divine  indepen¬ 
dence,”  or  when  it  was  thought,  as  by  our  own  Tory  party  in  old 
days,  that  “  the  monarch  was  the  delegate  of  heaven it  is  clear 
that,  given  the  premise,  the  inevitable  conclusion  was  that  no 
bounds  could  be  set  to  governmental  commands.  But  for  the 
modern  belief  such  a  warrant  does  not  exist.  Making  no  preten¬ 
sion  to  divine  descent  or  divine  appointment,  a  legislative  body 
can  show  no  supernatural  justification  for  its  claim  to  unlimited 
authority ;  and  no  natural  justification  has  ever  been  attempted. 
Hence,  belief  in  its  unlimited  authority  is  without  that  consistency 
which  of  old  characterized  belief  in  a  king’s  unlimited  authority. 

It  is  curious  how  commonly  men  continue  to  hold  in  fact, 
doctrines  which  they  have  rejected  in  name — retaining  the  substance 
after  they  have  abandoned  the  form.  In  Theology  an  illustration 
is  supplied  by  Carlyle,  who,  in  his  student  days,  giving  up,  as  he 
thought,  the  creed  of  his  fathers,  rejected  its  shell  only,  keeping 
the  contents;  and  was  proved  by  his  conceptions  of  the  world, 
and  man,  and  conduct,  to  be  still  among  the  sternest  of  Scotch 


THE  GREAT  POLITICAL  SUPERSTITION. 


79 


Calvinists.  Similarly,  Science  furnishes  an  instance  in  one  who 
united  naturalism  in  Geology  with  super  naturalism  in  Biology — 
Sir  Charles  Lyell.  While,  as  the  leading  expositor  of  the  uniformi- 
tarian  theory  in  Geology,  he  ignored  wholly  the  Mosaic  cosmogony, 
he  long  defended  that  belief  in  special  creations  of  organic  types, 
for  which  no  other  source  than  the  Mosaic  cosmogony  could  he 
assigned  ;  and  only  in  the  latter  part  of  his  life  surrendered  to  the 
arguments  of  Mr.  Darwin.  In  Politics,  as  above  implied,  we  have 
an  analogous  case.  The  tacitly-asserted  doctrine,  common  to 
Tories,  Whigs,  and  Radicals,  that  governmental  authority  is 
unlimited,  dates  back  to  times  when  the  law-giver  was  supposed  to 
have  a  warrant  from  God  ;  and  it  survives  still,  though  the  belief 
that  the  law-giver  has  God’s  warrant  has  died  out.  “  Oh,  an  Act 
of  Parliament  can  do  anything,”  is  the  reply  made  to  a  citizen  who 
questions  the  legitimacy  of  some  arbitrary  State-interference ;  and 
the  citizen  stands  paralyzed.  It  does  not  occur  to  him  to  ask  the 
how,  and  the  when,  and  the  whence,  of  this  asserted  omnipotence 
bounded  only  by  physical  impossibilities. 

Here  we  will  take  leave  to  question  it.  In  default  of  the  justi¬ 
fication,  once  logically  valid,  that  the  ruler  on  Earth  being  a  deputy 
of  the  ruler  in  Heaven,  submission  to  him  in  all  things  is  a  duty, 
let  us  ask  what  reason  there  is  for  asserting  the  duty  of  submission 
in  all  things  to  a  ruling  power,  constitutional  or  republican,  which 
has  no  Heaven-derived  supremacy.  Evidently  this  inquiry  com¬ 
mits  us  to  a  criticism  of  past  and  present  theories  concerning 
political  authority.  To  revive  questions  supposed  to  be  long  since 
settled,  may  be  thought  to  need  some  apology  ;  but  there  is  a 
sufficient  apology  in  the  implication  above  made  clear,  that  the 
theory  commonly  accepted  is  ill-based  or  unbased. 

The  notion  of  sovereignty  is  that  which  first  presents  itself ; 
and  a  critical  examination  of  this  notion,  as  entertained  by  those 
who  do  not  postulate  the  supernatural  origin  of  sovereignty,  carries 
us  back  to  the  arguments  of  Hobbes. 

Let  us  grant  Hobbes’s  postulate  that,  “  during  the  time  men 
live  without  a  common  power  to  keep  them  all  in  awe,  they  are  in 
that  condition  which  is  called  war  ....  of  every  man  against 
every  man  though  this  is  not  true,  since  there  are  some  small 
uncivilized  societies  in  which,  without  any  “  common  power  to  keep 
*  Hobbes,  Collected  Works,  vol.  iii.  pp.  112-13. 


80 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


them  all  in  awe,”  men  maintain  peace  and  harmony  better  than  it 
is  maintained  m  societies  where  such  a  power  exists.  Let  ns  sup¬ 
pose  him  to  be  right,  too,  in  assuming  that  the  rise  of  a  ruling 
power  over  associated  men,  results  from  their  desires  to  preserve 
order  among  themselves ;  though,  in  fact,  it  habitually  arises  from 
the  need  for  subordination  to  a  leader  in  war,  defensive  or  offensive, 
and  has  originally  no  necessary,  and  often  no  actual,  relation  to 
the  preservation  of  order  among  the  combined  individuals.  Once 
more,  let  us  admit  the  indefensible  assumption  that  to  escape  the 
evils  of  chronic  conflicts,  which  must  otherwise  continue  among 
them,  the  members  of  a  community  enter  into  a  “  pact  or  covenant,” 
by  which  they  all  bind  themselves  to  surrender  their  primitive 
freedom  of  action,  and  subordinate  themselves  to  the  will  of  a  ruling 
power  agreed  upon  :*  accepting,  also,  the  implication  that  their 
descendants  for  ever  are  bound  by  the  covenant  which  remote 
ancestors  made  for  them.  Let  us,  I  say,  not  object  to  these  data, 
but  pass  to  the  conclusions  Hobbes  draws.  He  says : — 

“  For  where  no  covenant  hath  preceded,  there  hath  no  right  been  trans¬ 
ferred,  and  every  man  has  right  to  every  thing ;  and  consequently,  no  action 
can  be  unjust.  But  when  a  covenant  is  made,  then  to  break  it  is  unjust  .* 
and  the  definition  of  injustice,  is  no  other  than  the  not  performance  of 
covenant.  ....  Therefore  before  the  names  of  just  and  unjust  can  have 
place,  there  must  be  some  coercive  power,  to  compel  men  equally  to  the 
performance  of  their  covenants,  by  the  terror  of  some  punishment,  greater 
than  the  benefit  they  expect  by  the  breach  of  their  covenant.5^ 

Were  people’s  characters  in  Hobbes’s  day  really  so  bad  as  to 
warrant  his  assumption  that  none  would  perform  their  covenants 
in  the  absence  of  a  coercive  power  and  threatened  penalties  P  In 
•  our  day  “the  names  of  just  and  unjust  can  have  place”  quite 
apart  from  recognition  of  any  coercive  power.  Among  my  friends 
I  could  name  half  a  dozen  whom  I  would  implicitly  trust  to  per¬ 
form  their  covenants  without  any  “  terror  of  some  punishment 
and  over  whom  the  requirements  of  justice  would  be  as  imperative 
in  the  absence  of  a  coercive  power  as  in  its  presence.  Merely 
noting,  however,  that  this  unwarranted  assumption  vitiates  Hobbes  s 
argument  for  State-authority,  and  accepting  both  his  premises  and 
conclusion,  we  have  to  observe  two  significant  implications.  One  is 
that  State-authority  as  thus  derived,  is  a  means  to  an  end,  and  has 
no  validity  save  as  subserving  that  end :  if  the  end  is  not  subserved, 

*  Hobbes,  Collected  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  159,  t  Ibid.  pp.  130-1. 


THE  GREAT  POLITICAL  SUPERSTITION. 


81 


the  authority,  by  the  hypothesis,  does  not  exist.  The  other  is  that 
the  end  for  which  the  authority  exists,  as  thus  specified,  is  the  en¬ 
forcement  of  justice — the  maintenance  of  equitable  relations.  The 
reasoning  yields  no  warrant  for  other  coercion  over  citizens  than 
that  which  is  required  for  preventing  direct  aggressions,  and  those 
indirect  aggressions  constituted  by  breaches  of  contract ;  to  which, 
if  we  add  protection  against  external  enemies,  the  entire  function 
implied  by  Hobbes’s  derivation  of  sovereign  authority  is  compre¬ 
hended. 

Hobbes  argued  in  the  interests  of  absolute  monarchy.  His 
modern  admirer,  Austin,  had  for  his  aim  to  derive  the  authority 
of  law  from  the  unlimited  sovereignty  of  one  man,  or  of  a  number 
of  men,  small  or  large  compared  with  the  whole  community. 
Austin  was  originally  in  the  army ;  and  it  has  been  truly  remarked 
that  “the  permanent  traces  left”  may  be  seen  in  his  Province  of 
Jurisprudence .  When,  undeterred  by  the  exasperating  pedan¬ 
tries — the  endless  distinctions  and  definitions  and  repetitions — 
which  serve  but  to  hide  his  essential  doctrines,  we  ascertain  what 
these  are,  it  becomes  manifest  that  he  assimilates  civil  authority  to 
military  authority :  taking  for  granted  that  the  one,  as  the  other, 
is  above  question  in  respect  of  both  origin  and  range.  To  get 
justification  for  positive  law,  he  takes  us  back  to  the  absolute 
sovereignty  of  the  power  imposing  it — a  monarch,  an  aristocracy, 
or  that  larger  body  of  men  who  have  votes  in  a  democracy ;  for 
such  a  body  also,  he  styles  the  sovereign,  in  contrast  with  the 
remaining  portion  of  the  community  which,  from  incapacity  or 
other  cause,  remains  subject.  And  having  affirmed,  or,  rather, 
taken  for  granted,  the  unlimited  authority  of  the  body,  simple  or 
compound,  small  or  large,  which  he  styles  sovereign,  he,  of  course, 
has  no  difficulty  in  deducing  the  legal  validity  of  its  edicts,  which 
he  calls  positive  law.  Bat  the  problem  is  simply  moved  a  step 
further  back  and  there  left  unsolved.  The  true  question  is — 
Whence  the  sovereignty?  What  is  the  assignable  warrant  for 
this  unqualified  supremacy  assumed  by  one,  or  by  a  small  number, 
or  by  a  large  number,  over  the  rest  ?  A  critic  might  fitly  say — 
“We  will  dispense  with  your  process  of  deriving  positive  law  from 
unlimited  sovereignty :  the  sequence  is  obvious  enough.  But  first 
prove  your  unlimited  sovereignty.” 

To  this  demand  there  is  no  response.  Analyze  his  assumption, 
and  the  doctrine  of  Austin  proves  to  have  no  better  basis  than  that 


82 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


of  Hobbes.  In  tbe  absence  of  admitted  divine  descent  or  appoint¬ 
ment,  neither  single-headed  ruler  nor  many-headed  ruler  can 
produce  such  credentials  as  the  claim  to  unlimited  sovereignty 
implies. 

“  But  surely,’*  will  come  in  deafening  chorus  the  reply,  “  there 
is  the  unquestionable  right  of  the  majority,  which  gives  un¬ 
questionable  right  to  the  parliament  it  elects.” 

Yes,  now  we  are  coming  down  to  the  root  of  the  matter.  The 
divine  right  of  parliaments  means  the  divine  right  of  majorities. 
The  fundamental  assumption  made  by  legislators  and  people  alike, 
is  that  a  majority  has  powers  to  which  no  limits  can  be  put.  This 
is  the  current  theory  which  all  accept  without  proof  as  a  self- 
evident  truth.  Nevertheless,  criticism  will,  I  think,  show  that 
this  current  theory  requires  a  radical  modification. 

In  an  essay  on  “  Railway  Morals  and  Railway  Policy,”  pub¬ 
lished  in  the  Edinburgh  Review  for  October,  1854,  I  had  occasion 
to  deal  with  the  question  of  a  majority’s  powers  as  exemplified  in 
the  conduct  of  public  companies ;  and  I  cannot  better  prepare  the 
way  for  conclusions  presently  to  be  drawn,  than  by  quoting  a 
passage  from  it: — 

“  Under  whatever  circumstances,  or  for  whatever  ends,  a  number  of 
men  co-operate,  it  is  held  that  if  difference  of  opinion  arises  among  them, 
justice  requires  that  the  will  of  the  greater  number  shall  be  executed 
rather  than  that  of  the  smaller  number ;  and  this  rule  is  supposed  to  be 
uniformly  applicable,  be  the  question  at  issue  what  it  may.  So  confirmed 
is  this  conviction,  and  so  little  have  the  ethics  of  the  matter  been  con¬ 
sidered,  that  to  most  this  mere  suggestion  of  a  doubt  will  cause  some 
astonishment.  Yet  it  needs  but  a  brief  analysis  to  show  that  the  opinion 
is  little  better  than  a  political  superstition.  Instances  may  readily  be 
selected  which  prove,  by  reductio  ad  absurdum, ,  that  the  right  of  a 
majority  is  a  purely  conditional  right,  valid  only  within  specific  limits. 
Let  us  take  a  few.  Suppose  that  at  the  general  meeting  of  some  philan¬ 
thropic  association,  it  was  resolved  that  in  addition  to  relieving  distress 
the  association  should  employ  home-missionaries  to  preach  down  popery. 
Might  the  subscriptions  of  Catholics,  who  had  joined  the  body  with 
charitable  views,  be  rightfully  used  for  this  end  ?  Suppose  that  of  the 
members  of  a  book-club,  the  greater  number,  thinking  that  under  existing 
circumstances  rifle-practice  was  more  important  than  reading,  should 
decide  to  change  the  purpose  of  their  union,  and  to  apply  the  funds  in 
hand  for  the  purchase  of  powder,  ball,  and  targets.  Would  the  rest  be 
bound  by  this  decision  ?  Suppose  that  under  the  excitement  of  news  from 


THE  GREAT  POLITICAL  SUPERSTITION. 


83 


Australia,  the  majority  of  a  Freehold  Land  Society  should  determine,  not 
simply  to  start  in  a  body  for  the  gold-diggings,  but  to  use  their  accumulated 
capital  to  provide  outfits.  Would  this  appropriation  of  property  be  just 
to  the  minority  ?  and  must  these  join  the  expedition  ?  Scarcely  anyone 
would  venture  an  affirmative  answer  even  to  the  first  of  these  questions  ; 
much  less  to  the  others.  And  why?  Because  everyone  must  perceive 
that  by  uniting  himself  with  others,  no  man  can  equitably  be  betrayed 
into  acts  utterly  foreign  to  the  purpose  for  which  he  joined  them.  Each 
of  these  supposed  minorities  would  properly  reply  to  those  seeking  to 
coerce  them  i — {We  combined  with  you  for  a  defined  object  j  we  gave 
money  and  time  for  the  furtherance  of  that  object ;  on  all  questions  thence 
arising  we  tacitly  agreed  to  conform  to  the  will  of  the  greater  number  5  but 
we  did  not  agree  to  conform  on  any  other  questions.  If  you  induce  us  to 
join  you  by  professing  a  certain  end,  and  then  undertake  some  other  end 
of  which  we  were  not  apprised,  you  obtain  our  support  under  false  pre¬ 
tences  ;  you  exceed  the  expressed  or  understood  compact  to  which  we 
committed  ourselves ;  and  we  are  no  longer  bound  by  your  decisions. 
Clearly  this  is  the  only  rational  interpretation  of  the  matter.  The  geneial 
principle  underlying  the  right  government  of  every  incorporated  body,  is, 
that  its  members  contract  with  each  other  severally  to  submit  to  the  will 
of  the  majority  in  all  matters  concerning  the  fulfilment  of  the  objects  for 
which  they  are  incorporated  \  but  in  no  others.  To  this  extent  only  can 
the  contract  hold.  For  as  it  is  implied  in  the  very  nature  of  a  contract, 
that  those  entering  into  it  must  know  what  they  contract  to  do  ;  and  as 
those  who  unite  with  others  for  a  specified  object,  cannot  contemplate  all 
the  unspecified  objects  which  it  is  hypothetically  possible  for  the  union  to 
undertake  j  it  follows  that  the  contract  entered  into  cannot  extend  to  such 
unspecified  objects.  And  if  there  exists  no  expressed  or  understood 
contract  between  the  union  and  its  members  respecting  unspecified  objects, 
then  for  the  majority  to  coerce  the  minority  into  undertaking  them,  is 
nothing  less  than  gross  tyranny.” 

Naturally,  if  such  a  confusion  of  ideas  exists  in  respect  of  the 
powers  of  a  majority  where  the  deed  of  incorporation  tacitly 
limits  those  powers,  still  more  must  there  exist  such  a  confusion 
where  there  has  been  no  deed  of  incorporation.  Nevertheless  the 
same  principle  holds.  I  again  emphasize  the  proposition  that  the 
members  of  an  incorporated  body  are  bound  “  severally  to  submit 
to  the  will  of  the  majority  in  all  matters  concerning  the  fulfilment  of 
the  objects  for  which  they  are  incorporated ;  but  in  no  others'1  And 
I  contend  that  this  holds  of  an  incorporated  nation  as  much  as  of 
an  incorporated  company. 

“  Yes,  but,”  comes  the  obvious  rejoinder,  “  as  there  is  no  deed 
by  which  the  members  of  a  nation  are  incorporated — as  there 


84  THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 

neither  is,  nor  ever  was,  a  specification  of  purposes  for  which  the 
union  was  formed,  there  exist  no  limits ;  and,  consequently,  the 
power  of  the  majority  is  unlimited.” 

Evidently  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  hypothesis  of  a  social 
contract,  either  under  the  shape  assumed  by  Hobbes  or  under  the 
shape  assumed  by  Rousseau,  is  baseless.  Hay  more,  it  must  be 
admitted  that  even  had  such  a  contract  once  been  formed,  it  could 
not  be  binding  on  the  posterity  of  those  who  formed  it.  Moreover, 
if  any  say  that  in  the  absence  of  those  limitations  to  its  powers 
which  a  deed  of  incorporation  might  imply,  there  is  nothing  to 
prevent  a  majority  from  imposing  its  will  on  a  minority  by  force, 
assent  must  be  given — an  assent,  however,  joined  with  the  com¬ 
ment  that  if  the  superior  force  of  the  majority  is  its  justification, 
then  the  superior  force  of  a  despot  backed  by  an  adequate  army, 
is  also  justified  :  the  problem  lapses.  What  we  here  seek  is  some 
higher  warrant  for  the  subordination  of  minority  to  majority  than 
that  arising  from  inability  to  resist  physical  coercion.  Even 
Austin,  anxious  as  he  is  to  establish  the  unquestionable  authority 
of  positive  law,  and  assuming,  as  he  does,  an  absolute  sovereignty 
of  some  kind,  monarchic,  aristocratic,  constitutional,  or  popular,  as 
the  source  of  its  unquestionable  authority,  is  obliged,  in  the  last 
resort,  to  admit  a  moral  limit  to  its  action  over  the  community. 
While  insisting,  in  pursuance  of  his  rigid  theory  of  sovereignty, 
that  a  sovereign  body  originating  from  the  people  “  is  legally  free 
to  abridge  their  political  liberty,  at  its  own  pleasure  or  discre¬ 
tion,”  he  allows  that  “  a  government  may  be  hindered  by  positive 
morality  from  abridging  the  political  liberty  which  it  leaves  or 
grants  to  its  subjects.”*  Hence,  we  have  to  find,  not  a  physical 
justification,  but  a  moral  justification,  for  the  supposed  absolute 
power  of  the  majority. 

This  will  at  once  draw  forth  the  rejoinder — “  Of  course,  in  the 
absence  of  any  agreement,  with  its  implied  limitations,  the  rule  of 
the  majority  is  unlimited;  because  it  is  more  just  that  the  majority 
should  have  its  way  than  that  the  minority  should  have  its  way.” 
A  very  reasonable  rejoinder  this  seems  until  there  comes  the 
re-rejoinder.  We  may  oppose  to  it  the  equally  tenable  proposition 
that,  in  the  absence  of  an  agreement,  the  supremacy  of  a  majority 
over  a  minority  does  not  exist  at  all.  It  is  co-operation  of  some 
kind,  from  which  there  arise  these  powers  and  obligations  of 

g  The  Province  of  Jurisprudence  Determined  (second  edition),  p.  241. 


THE  GREAT  POLITICAL  SUPERSTITION. 


85 


majority  and  minority ;  and  in  the  absence  of  any  agreement  to 
co-operate,  such  powers  and  obligations  are  also  absent. 

Here  the  argument  apparently  ends  in  a  dead  lock.  Under  the 
existing  condition  of  things,  no  moral  origin  seems  assignable 
either  for  the  sovereignty  of  the  majority  or  for  the  limitation  of 
its  sovereignty.  But  further  consideration  reveals  a  solution  of 
the  difficulty.  For  if,  dismissing  all  thought  of  any  hypothe¬ 
tical  agreement  to  co-operate  heretofore  made,  we  ask  what 
would  be  the  agreement  into  which  citizens  would  now  enter 
with  practical  unanimity,  we  get  a  sufficiently  clear  answer ; 
and  with  it  a  sufficiently  clear  justification  for  the  rule  of  the 
majority  inside  a  certain  sphere,  but  not  outside  that  sphere.  Let 
us  first  observe  a  few  of  the  limitations  which  at  once  become 
apparent. 

Were  all  Englishmen  now  asked  if  they  would  agree  to 
co-operate  for  the  teaching  of  religion,  and  would  give  the  majority 
power  to  fix  the  creed  and  the  forms  of  worship,  there  would  come 
a  very  emphatic  “  No  ”  from  a  large  part  of  them.  If,  in  pursuance 
of  a  proposal  to  revive  sumptuary  laws,  the  inquiry  were  made 
whether  they  would  bind  themselves  to  abide  by  the  will  of  the 
majority  in  respect  of  the  fashions  and  qualities  of  their  clothes, 
nearly  all  of  them  would  refuse.  In  like  manner  if  (to  take  an 
actual  question  of  the  day)  people  were  polled  to  ascertain  whether, 
in  respect  of  the  beverages  they  drank,  they  would  accept  the 
decision  of  the  greater  number,  certainly  half,  and  probably 
more  than  half,  would  be  unwilling.  Similarly  with  respect  to 
many  other  actions  which  most  men  now-a-days  regard  as  of 
purely  private  concern.  Whatever  desire  there  might  be  to  co<- 
operate  for  carrying  on,  or  regulating,  such  actions,  would  be  far 
from  a  unanimous  desire.  Manifestly,  then,  had  social  co-opera¬ 
tion  to  be  commenced  by  ourselves,  and  had  its  purposes  to  be 
specified  before  consent  to  co-operate  could  be  obtained,  there 
would  be  large  parts  of  human  conduct  in  respect  of  which  co¬ 
operation  would  be  declined ;  and  in  respect  of  which,  consequently, 
no  authority  by  the  majority  over  the  minority  could  be  rightfully 
exercised. 

Turn  now  to  the  converse  question — For  what  ends  would  all 
men  agree  to  co-operate  ?  None  will  deny  that  for  resisting  invasion 
the  agreement  would  be  practically  unanimous.  Excepting  only  the 
Quakers,  who,  having  done  highly  useful  work  in  their  time,  are 


86 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


now  dying  out,  all  would  unite  for  defensive  war  (not,  however,  for 
offensive  war)  ;  and  they  would,  by  so  doing,  tacitly  bind  themselves 
to  conform  to  the  will  of  the  majority  in  respect  of  measures  directed 
to  that  end.  There  would  be  practical  unanimity,  also,  in  the  agree¬ 
ment  to  co-operate  for  defence  against  internal  enemies  as  against 
external  enemies.  Omitting  criminals,  all  must  wish  to  have  person 
and  property  adequately  protected.  In  short,  each  citizen  desires 
to  preserve  his  life,  to  preserve  those  things  which  conduce  to 
maintenance  of  his  life  and  enjoyment  of  it,  and  to  preserve  intact 
his  liberties  both  of  using  these  things  and  getting  further  such. 
It  is  obvious  to  him  that  he  cannot  do  all  this  if  he  acts  alone. 
Against  foreign  invaders  he  is  powerless  unless  he  combines  with 
his  fellows ;  and  the  business  of  protecting  himself  against  domestic 
invaders,  if  he  did  not  similarly  combine,  would  be  alike  onerous, 
dangerous,  and  inefficient.  In  one  other  co-operation  all  are 
interested — use  of  the  territory  they  inhabit.  Did  the  primitive 
communal  ownership  survive,  there  would  survive  the  primitive 
communal  control  of  the  uses  to  be  made  of  land  by  individuals  or 
by  groups  of  them ;  and  decisions  of  the  majority  would  rightly 
prevail  respecting  the  terms  on  which  portions  of  it  might  be 
employed  for  raising  food,  for  making  means  of  communication, 
and  for  other  purposes.  Even  at  present,  though  the  matter  has 
been  complicated  by  the  growth  of  private  landownership,  yet,  since 
the  State  is  still  supreme  owner  (every  landowner  being  in  law  a 
tenant  of  the  Crown)  able  to  resume  possession,  or  authorize  com¬ 
pulsory  purchase,  at  a  fair  price  ;  the  implication  is  that  the  will 
of  the  majority  is  valid  respecting  the  modes  in  which,  and  con¬ 
ditions  under  which,  parts  of  the  surface  or  sub-surface,  may  be 
utilized:  involving  certain  agreements  made  on  behalf  of  the 
public  with  private  persons  and  companies. 

Details  are  not  needful  here  ;  nor  is  it  needful  to  discuss  that 
border  region  lying  between  these  classes  of  cases,  and  to  say  how 
much  is  included  in  the  last  and  how  much  is  excluded  with  the 
first.  For  present  purposes,  it  is  sufficient  to  recognize  the  un¬ 
deniable  truth  that  there  are  numerous  kinds  of  actions  in  respect 
of  which  men  would  not,  if  they  were  asked,  agree  with  anything 
like  unanimity  to  be  bound  by  the  will  of  the  majority ;  while 
there  are  some  kinds  of  actions  in  respect  of  which  they  would 
almost  unanimously  agree  to  be  thus  bound.  Here,  then,  we  find  a 
definite  warrant  for  enforcing  the  will  of  the  majority  within  cer- 


THE  GREAT  POLITICAL  SUPERSTITION. 


87 


tain  limits,  and  a  definite  warrant  for  denying  tlie  authority  of  its 
will  beyond  those  limits. 

But  evidently,  when  analyzed,  the  question  resolves  itself  into 
the  further  question — What  are  the  relative  claims  of  the  aggre¬ 
gate  and  of  its  units  ?  Are  the  rights  of  the  community  univer¬ 
sally  valid  against  the  individual?  or  has  the  individual  some 
rights  which  are  valid  against  the  community  ?  The  judgment 
given  on  this  point  underlies  the  entire  fabric  of  political  con¬ 
victions  formed,  and  more  especially  those  convictions  which 
concern  the  proper  sphere  of  government.  Here,  then,  I  propose 
to  revive  a  dormant  controversy,  with  the  expectation  of  reaching 
a  different  conclusion  from  that  which  is  fashionable. 

Says  Professor  Jevons,  in  his  work,  The  State  in  Relation  to 
Labour , — “  The  first  step  must  be  to  rid  our  minds  of  the  idea 
that  there  are  any  such  things  in  social  matters  as  abstract  rights.” 
Of  like  character  is  the  belief  expressed  by  Mr.  Matthew  Arnold, 
in  his  article  on  copyright : — “  An  author  has  no  natural  right  to  a 
property  in  his  production.  But  then  neither  has  he  a  natural 
right  to  anything  whatever  which  he  may  produce  or  acquire.”* 
So,  too,  I  recently  read  in  a  weekly  journal  of  high  repute,  that 
“  to  explain  once  more  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  ‘  natural 
right  *  would  be  a  waste  of  philosophy.”  And  the  view  expressed 
in  these '  extracts  is  commonly  uttered  by  statesmen  and  lawyers 
in  a  way  implying  that  only  the  unthinking  masses  hold  any 
other. 

One  might  have  expected  that  utterances  to  this  effect  would 
have  been  rendered  less  dogmatic  by  the  knowledge  that  a  whole 
school  of  legists  on  the  Continent,  maintains  a  belief  diametrically 
opposed  to  that  maintained  by  the  English  school.  The  idea  of 
Natur-recht  is  the  root-idea  of  German  jurisprudence.  How  what¬ 
ever  may  be  the  opinion  held  respecting  German  philosophy  at 
large,  it  cannot  be  characterized  as  shallow.  A  doctrine  current 
among  a  people  distinguished  above  all  others  as  laborious  in¬ 
quirers,  and  certainly  not  to  be  classed  with  superficial  thinkers, 
should  not  be  dismissed  as  though  it  were  nothing  more  than  a 
popular  delusion.  This,  however,  by  the  way.  Along  with  the 
proposition  denied  in  the  above  quotations,  there  goes  a  counter- 

*  Fortnightly  Review  in  1880,  vol.  xxvii.  p.  322. 


88 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


proposition  affirmed.  Let  ns  see  what  it  is ;  and  what  results  when 
we  go  behind  it  and  seek  its  warrant. 

On  revei  ting  to  Bentham,  we  find  this  counter-proposition 
overtly  expressed.  He  tells  us  that  government  fulfils  its  office 
“by  creating  rights  which  it  confers  upon  individuals  :  rights  of 
personal  security ;  rights  of  protection  for  honour;  rights  of  pro¬ 
perty  ;  ”  &c* * * §  Were  this  doctrine  asserted  as  following  from  the 
divine  right  of  kings,  there  would  be  nothing  in  it  manifestly  in- 
congruous.  Hid  it  come  to  us  from  ancient  Peru,  where  the  Ynca 
“  was  the  source  from  which  everything  flowed  ;”f  or  from  Shoa 
(Abyssinia),  where  “  of  their  persons  and  worldly  substance  he 
[the  king]  is  absolute  master or  from  Hahome,  where  “  all  men 
are  slaves  to  the  king;”§  it  would  be  consistent  enough.  But 
Bentham,  far  from  being  an  absolutist  like  Hobbes,  wrote  in  the 
interests  of  popular  rule.  In  his  Constitutional  Code  ||  he  fixes 
the  sovereignty  in  the  whole  people;  arguing  that  it  is  best 
“  to  give  the  sovereign  power  to  the  largest  possible  portion  of 
those  whose  greatest  happiness  is  the  proper  and  chosen  object/’ 
because  “  this  proportion  is  more  apt  than  any  other  that  can  be 
proposed  ”  for  achievement  of  that  object. 

Mark,  now,  what  happens  when  we  put  these  two  doctrines 
together.  The  sovereign  people  jointly  appoint  representatives, 
and  so  create  a  government ;  the  government  thus  created,  creates 
rights ;  and  then,  having  created  rights,  it  confers  them  on  the 
separate  members  of  the  sovereign  people  by  which  it  was  itself 
created.  Here  is  a  marvellous  piece  of  political  legerdemain! 
Mr.  Matthew  Arnold,  contending,  in  the  article  above  quoted,  that 
“property  is  the  creation  of  law/’  tells  us  to  beware  of  the 
“metaphysical  phantom  of  property  in  itself.”  Surely,  among 
metaphysical  phantoms  the  most  shadowy  is'  this  which  supposes  a 
thing  to  be  obtained  by  creating  an  agent,  which  creates  the 
thing,  and  then  confers  the  thing  on  its  own  creator ! 

From  whatever  point  of  view  we  consider  it,  Bentham’s  pro¬ 
position  proves  to  be  unthinkable.  Government,  he  says,  fulfils 
itsoffice  “by  creating  rights,”  Two  meanings  may  be  given  to 

*  Bentham’s  Works  (Bowring’s  edition),  vol.  i.  p.  301. 

f  Prescott,  Conquest  of  Peru ,  bk.  i.  ch.  i. 

t  Harris,  Highlands  of  Ethiopia,  ii.  94. 

§  Burton,  Mission  to  Gelele,  King  of  Dahome ,  i.  p.  226. 

||  Bentham’s  Works,  vol.  ix.  p.  97. 


THE  GREAT  POLITICAL  SUPERSTITION. 


89 


the  word  “  creating.”  It  may  be  supposed  to  mean  the  production 
of  something  out  of  nothing ;  or  it  may  be  supposed  to  mean  the 
giving  form  and  structure  to  something  which  already  exists. 
There  are  many  who  think  that  the  production  of  something  out 
of  nothing  cannot  be  conceived  as  effected  even  by  omnipotence ; 
and  probably  none  will  assert  that  the  production  of  something 
out  of  nothing  is  within  the  competence  of  a  human  government. 
The  alternative  conception  is  that  a  human  government  creates 
only  in  the  sense  that  it  shapes  something  pre-existing.  In  that 
case,  the  question  arises — “What  is  the  something  pre-existing 
which  it  shapes  ?  ”  Clearly  the  word  “  creating  ”  begs  the  whole 
question — passes  off  an  illusion  on  the  unwary  reader.  Bentham 
was  a  stickler  for  definiteness  of  expression,  and  in  his  Booh  of 
Fallacies  has  a  chapter  on  “  Impostor-terms.”  It  is  curious  that 
he  should  have  furnished  so  striking  an  illustration  of  the  per¬ 
verted  belief  which  an  impostor-term  may  generate. 

But  now  let  us  overlook  these  various  impossibilities  of  thought, 
and  seek  the  most  defensible  interpretation  of  Bentham’s  view. 

It  may  be  *said  that  the  totality  of  all  powers  and  rights, 
originally  existed  as  an  undivided  whole  in  the  sovereign  people  ; 
and  that  this  undivided  whole  is  given  in  trust  (as  Austin  would 
say)  to  a  ruling  power,  appointed  by  the  sovereign  people,  for  the 
purpose  of  distribution.  If,  as  we  have  seen,  the  proposition  that 
rights  are  created  is  simply  a  figure  of  speech ;  then  the  only 
intelligible  construction  of  Bentham’s  view  is  that  a  multitude  of 
individuals,  who  severally  wish  to  satisfy  their  desires,  and  have, 
as  an  aggregate,  possession  of  all  the  sources  of  satisfaction,  as 
well  as  power  over  all  individual  actions,  appoint  a  government, 
which  declares  the  ways  in  which,  and  the  conditions  under  which, 
individual  actions  may  be  carried  on  and  the  satisfactions  obtained. 
Let  us  observe  the  implications.  Each  man  exists  in  two  capacities. 
In  his  private  capacity  he  is  subject  to  the  government.  In  hi$ 
public  capacity  he  is  one  of  the  sovereign  people  who  appoint  the 
government.  That  is  to  say,  in  his  private  capacity  he  is  one 
of  those  to  whom  rights  are  given  ;  and  in  his  public  capacity 
he  is  one  of  those  who,  through  the  government  they  appoint,  give 
the  rights.  Turn  this  abstract  statement  into  a  concrete  state¬ 
ment,  and  see  what  it  means.  Let  the  community  consist  of  a 
million  men,  who,  by  the  hypothesis,  are  not  only  joint  possessors 

of  the  inhabited  region,  but  joint  possessors  of  all  liberties  of 
1 


90 


THE  MAH  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


action  and  appropriation :  the  only  right  recognized  being  that  of 
the  aggregate  to  everything.  What  follows  ?  Each  person,  while 
not  owning  any  product  of  his  own  labour,  has,  as  a  unit  in  the 
sovereign  body,  a  millionth  part  of  the  ownership  of  the  products 
of  all  others’  labour.  This  is  an  unavoidable  implication.  As  the 
government,  in  Bentham’s  view,  is  but  an  agent;  the  rights  it 
confers  are  rights  given  to  it  in  trust  by  the  sovereign  people.  If 
so,  such  rights  must  be  possessed  en  bloc  by  the  sovereign  people 
before  the  government,  in  fulfilment  of  its  trust,  confers  them  on 
individuals ;  and,  if  so,  each  individual  has  a  millionth  portion  of 
these  rights  in  his  public  capacity,  while  he  has  no  rights  in  his 
private  capacity.  These  he  gets  only  when  all  the  rest  of  the 
million  join  to  endow  him  with  them;  while  he  joins  to  endow 
with  them  every  other  member  of  the  million  ! 

Thus,  in  whatever  way  we  interpret  it,  Bentham’s  proposition 
leaves  us  in  a  plexus  of  absurdities. 

Even  though  ignoring  the  opposite  opinion  of  German  writers 
on  jurisprudence,  and  even  without  an  analysis  which  proves  their 
own  opinion  to  be  untenable,  Bentham’s  disciples  might  have  been 
led  to  treat  less  cavalierly  the  doctrine  of  natural  rights.  For 
sundry  groups  of  social  phenomena  unite  to  prove  that  this 
doctrine  is  well  warranted,  and  the  doctrine  they  set  against  it 
unwarranted. 

Tribes  in  various  parts  of  the  world  show  us  that  before  definite 
government  arises,  conduct  is  regulated  by  customs.  The 
Bechuanas  are  controlled  by  “  long-acknowledged  customs.”* * * § 
Among  the  Koranna  Hottentots,  who  only  “tolerate  their  chiefs 
rather  than  obey  them,”f  “  when  ancient  usages  are  not  in  the 
way,  every  man  seems  to  act  as  is  right  in  his  own  eyes.”J  The 
Araucanians  are  guided  by  “  nothing  more  than  primordial  usages 
or  tacit  conventions.  ’§  Among  the  Kirghizes  the  judgments  of 
the  elders  are  based  on  “  universally-recognized  customs.”|j  So, 

*  Burcliell,  W.  J.,  Travels  into  the  Interior  of  Southern  Africa ,  vol.  i. 
p.  544. 

t  Arbousset  and  Daumas,  Toy  age  of  Exploration,  p.  27. 

X  Thompson,  G-.,  Travels  and  Adventures  in  Southern  Africa ,  vol.  ii.,  p.  30. 

§  Thompson,  Gr.  A.,  Alcedo' s  Geographical  and  Historical  Dictionary  of 
America ,  vol.  i.  p.  405. 

J]  Mitchell,  Alex.,  Siberian  Overland  Eoute,  p.  248. 


THE  GREAT  POLITICAL  SUPERSTITION. 


91 


too,  of  the  Dyaks,  Rajah  Brooke  tells  ns  that  “  custom  seems 
simply  to  have  become  the  law ;  and  breaking  custom  leads  to  a 
fine.”* * * §  So  sacred  are  immemorial  customs  with  the  primitive 
man,  that  he  never  dreams  of  questioning  their  authority ;  and 
when  government  arises,  its  power  is  limited  by  them.  In  Mada¬ 
gascar  the  king’s  word  suffices  only  “where  there  is  no  law, 
custom,  or  precedent.”!  Raffles  tells  us  that  in  Java  “the 
customs  of  the  country”!  restrain  the  will  of  the  ruler.  In 
Sumatra,  too,  the  people  do  not  allow  their  chiefs  to  “  alter  their 
ancient  usages.”§  Nay,  occasionally,  as  in  Ashantee,  “  the 
attempt  to  change  some  customs  ”  has  caused  a  king’s  dethrone¬ 
ment.  ||  Now,  among  the  customs  which  we  thus  find  to  be  pre- 
governmental,  and  which  subordinate  governmental  power  when 
it  is  established,  are  those  which  recognize  certain  individual 
rights — rights  to  act  in  certain  ways  and  possess  certain  things. 
Even  where  the  recognition  of  property  is  least  developed,  there 
is  proprietorship  of  weapons,  tools,  and  personal  ornaments ;  and, 
generally,  the  recognition  goes  far  beyond  this.  Among  such 
North- American  Indians  as  the  Snakes,  who  are  without  govern¬ 
ment,  there  is  private  ownership  of  horses.  By  the  Chippewayans, 
“who  have  no  regular  government,”  game  taken  in  private  traps 
“  is  considered  as  private  property. ”^[  Kindred  facts  concerning 
huts,  utensils,  and  other  personal  belongings,  might  be  brought  in 
evidence  from  accounts  of  the  Ahts,  the  Comanches,  the  Esqui¬ 
maux,  and  the  Brazilian  Indians.  Among  various  uncivilized 
peoples,  custom  has  established  the  claim  to  the  crop  grown  on  a 
cleared  plot  of  ground,  though  not  to  the  ground  itself ;  and  the 
Todas,  who  are  wholly  without  political  organization,  make  a  like 
distinction  between  ownership  of  cattle  and  of  land.  Kolff’s 
statement  respecting  “  the  peaceful  Arafuras  ”  well  sums  up  the 
evidence.  They  “  recognize  the  right  of  property,  in  the  fullest 
sense  of  the  word,  without  there  being  any  [other]  authority 
among  them  than  the  decisions  of  their  elders,  according  to  the 

*  Brooke’s,  C.,  Ten  Years  in  SaraivaJc,  vol.  i.  p.  129. 

f  Ellis,  History  of  Madagascar ,  vol.  i.  p.  377. 

J  Raffles,  Sir  T.  S.,  History  of  Java,  i.  274. 

§  Marsden,  W.,  History  of  Sumatra ,  p.  217. 

||  Beecham,  J.,  Ashantee  and  the  Gold  Coast ,  p.  90. 

*T  Schoolcraft,  H.  R.,  Expedition  to  the  Sources  of  the  Mississippi  River, 
v.  177. 


92 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


customs  of  their  forefathers.”*  But  even  without  seeking  proofs 
among  the  uncivilized,  sufficient  proofs  are  furnished  by  early 
stages  of  the  civilized.  Bentham  and  his  followers  seem  to  have 
forgotten  that  our  own  common  law  is  mainly  an  embodiment 
of  “  the  customs  of  the  realm.”  It  did  but  give  definite  shape  to 
that  which  it  found  existing.  Thus,  the  fact  and  the  fiction  are 
exactly  opposite  to  what  they  allege.  The  fact  is  that  property 
was  well  recognized  before  law  existed;  the  fiction  is  that  “pro¬ 
perty  is  the  creation  of  law.” 

Considerations  of  another  class  might  alone  have  led  them  to 
pause  had  they  duly  considered  their  meanings.  Were  it  true,  as 
alleged  by  Bentham,  that  Government  fulfils  its  office  “  by  creating 
rights  which  it  confers  on  individuals ;  ”  then,  the  implication 
would  be,  that  there  should  be  nothing  approaching  to  uniformity 
in  the  rights  conferred  by  different  governments.  In  the  absence 
of  a  determining  cause  over-ruling  their  decisions,  the  probabilities 
would  be  many  to  one  against  considerable  correspondence  among 
their  decisions.  But  there  is  very  great  correspondence.  Look 
where  we  may,  we  find  that  governments  interdict  the  same  kinds 
of  aggressions;  and,  by  implication,  recognize  the  same  kinds  of 
claims.  They  habitually  forbid  homicide,  theft,  adultery :  thus 
asserting  that  citizens  may  not  be  trespassed  against  in  certain 
ways.  And  as  society  advances,  minor  individual  claims  are 
protected  by  giving  remedies  for  breach  of  contract,  libel,  false 
witness,  &c.  In  a  word,  comparisons  show  that  though  codes  of 
law  differ  in  their  details  as  they  become  elaborated,  they  agree 
in  their  fundamentals.  What  does  this  prove  P  It  cannot  be  by 
chance  that  they  thus  agree.  They  agree  because  the  alleged 
ci  eating  of  rights  was  nothing  else  than  giving  formal  sanction 
and  better  definition  to  those  assertions  of  claims  and  recognitions 
of  claims  which  naturally  originate  from  the  individual  desires  of 
men  who  have  to  live  in  presence  of  one  another. 

Comparative  Sociology  discloses  another  group  of  facts  having 
the  same  implication.  Along  with  social  progress  it  becomes  in 
an  increasing  degree  the  business  of  the  State,  not  only  to  give 
formal  sanction  to  men’s  rights,  but  also  to  defend  them  against 
aggressors..  Before  permanent  government  exists,  and  in  many 
cases  after  it  is  considerably  developed,  the  rights  of  each  individual 


*  Earl  s  Kolff's  Voyage  of  the  Domga ,  p.  161. 


THE  GREAT  POLITICAL  SUPERSTITION. 


93 


are  asserted  and  maintained  by  himself,  or  by  his  family.  Alike 
among  savage  tribes  at  present,  among  civilized  peoples  in  the 
past,  and  even  now  in  unsettled  parts  of  Europe,  the  punishment 
for  murder  is  a  matter  of  private  concern :  “  the  sacred  duty  of 
blood  revenge  ”  devolves  on  some  one  of  a  cluster  of  relatives. 
Similarly,  compensations  for  aggressions  on  property  and  for  in¬ 
juries  of  other  kinds,  are  in  early  states  of  society  independently 
sought  by  each  man  or  family.  But  as  social  organization 
advances,  the  central  ruling  power  undertakes  more  and  more  to 
secure  to  individuals  their  personal  safety,  the  safety  of  their 
possessions,  and,  to  some  extent,  the  enforcement  of  their  claims 
established  by  contract.  Originally  concerned  almost  exclusively 
with  defence  of  the  society  as  a  whole  against  other  societies, 
or  with  conducting  its  attacks  on  other  societies,  Government  has 
come  more  and  more  to  discharge  the  function  of  defending  in¬ 
dividuals  against  one  another.  It  needs  but  to  recall  the  days 
when  men  habitually  carried  weapons,  or  to  bear  in  mind  the 
greater  safety  to  person  and  property  achieved  by  improved  police- 
administration  during  our  own  time,  or  to  note  the  increased 
facilities  now  given  for  recovering  small  debts,  to  see  that  the 
insuring  to  each  individual  the  unhindered  pursuit  of  the  objects 
of  life,  within  limits  set  by  others’  like  pursuits,  is  more  and  more 
recognized  as  a  duty  of  the  State.  In  other  words,  along  with  social 
progress,  there  goes  not  only  a  fuller  recognition  of  these  which 
we  call  natural  rights,  but  also  a  better  enforcement  of  them  by 
Government :  Government  becomes  more  and  more  the  servant  to 
these  essential  pre-requisites  for  individual  welfare. 

An  allied  and  still  more  significant  change  has  accompanied 
this.  In  early  stages,  at  the  same  time  that  the  State  failed  to 
protect  the  individual  against  aggression,  it  was  itself  an  aggressor 
in  multitudinous  ways.  Those  ancient  societies  which  progressed 
enough  to  leave  records,  having  all  been  conquering  societies,  show 
us  everywhere  the  traits  of  the  militant  regime.  As,  for  the  effec¬ 
tual  organization  of  fighting  bodies,  the  soldiers,  absolutely  obedient, 
must  act  independently  only  when  commanded  to  do  it ;  so,  for  the 
effectual  organization  of  fighting  societies,  citizens  must  have  their 
individualities  subordinated.  Private  claims  are  over-ridden  by 
public  claims ;  and  the  subject  loses  much  of  his  freedom  of  action. 
One  result  is  that  the  system  of  regimentation,  pervading  the 
society  as  well  as  the  army,  causes  detailed  regulation  of  conduct. 


94 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


The  dictates  of  the  ruler,  sanctified  by  ascription  of  them  to  his 
divine  ancestor,  are  unrestrained  by  any  conception  of  individual 
liberty ;  and  they  specify  men’s  actions  to  an  unlimited  extent — 
down  to  kinds  of  food  eaten,  modes  of  prejoaring  them,  shaping  of 
beards,  fringing  of  dresses,  sowing  of  grain,  &c.  This  omnipresent 
control,  which  the  ancient  Eastern  nations  in  general  exhibited, 
was  exhibited  also  in  large  measure  by  the  Greeks ;  and  was  carried 
to  its  greatest  pitch  in  the  most  militant  city,  Sparta.  Similarly 
during  mediaeval  days  throughout  Europe,  characterized  by  chronic 
warfare  with  its  appropriate  political  forms  and  ideas,  there  were 
scarcely  any  bounds  to  Governmental  interference  :  agriculture, 
manufactures,  trade,  were  regulated  in  detail ;  religious  beliefs  and 
observances  were  imposed ;  and  rulers  said  by  whom  alone  furs 
might  be  worn,  silver  used,  books  issued,  pigeons  kept,  &c.  &c. 
But  along  with  increase  of  industrial  activities,  and  implied  substi¬ 
tution  of  the  regime  of  contract  for  the  regime  of  status,  and  growth 
of  associated  sentiments,  there  went  (until  the  recent  reaction 
accompanying  reversion  to  militant  activity)  a  decrease  of  meddling 
with  people’s  doings.  Legislation  gradually  ceased  to  regulate  the 
cropping  of  fields,  or  dictate  the  ratio  of  cattle  to  acreage,  or 
specify  modes  of  manufacture  and  materials  to  be  used,  or  fix 
wages  and  prices,  or  interfere  with  dresses  and  games  (except 
where  there  was  gambling),  or  put  bounties  and  penalties  on  im¬ 
ports  or  exports,  or  prescribe  men’s  beliefs,  religious  or  political,  or 
prevent  them  from  combining  as  they  pleased,  or  travelling  where 
they  liked.  That  is  to  say,  throughout  a  large  range  of  conduct, 
the  right  of  the  citizen  to  uncontrolled  action  has  been  made  good 
against  the  pretensions  of  the  State  to  control  him.  While  the 
ruling  agency  has  increasingly  helped  him  to  exclude  intruders 
from  that  private  sphere  in  which  he  pursues  the  objects  of  life,  it 
has  itself  retreated  from  that  sphere ;  or,  in  other  words — decreased 
its  intrusions. 

Not  even  yet  have  we  noted  all  the  classes  of  facts  which  tell 
the  same  story.  It  is  told  afresh  in  the  improvements  and  reforms  of 
law  itself ;  as  well  as  in  the  admissions  and  assertions  of  those  who 
have  effected  them.  “  So  early  as  the  fifteenth  century,”  says 
Professor  Pollock,  “  we  find  a  common-law  judge  declaring  that, 
as  in  a  case  unprovided  for  by  known  rules  the  civilians  and 
canonists  devise  a  new  rule  according  to  ‘  the  law  of  nature  which 
is  the  ground  of  all  laws,’  the  Courts  of  Westminster  can  and  will 


THE  GREAT  POLITICAL  SUPERSTITION. 


95 


do  the  like.”*  Again,  our  system  of  Equity,  introduced  and  deve¬ 
loped  as  it  was  to  make  up  for  the  shortcomings  of  Common-law, 
or  rectify  its  inequities,  proceeded  throughout  on  a  recognition  of 
men’s  claims  considered  as  existing  apart  from  legal  warrant.  And 
the  changes  of  law  now  from  time  to  time  made  after  resistance, 
are  similarly  made  in  pursuance  of  current  ideas  concerning  the 
requirements  of  justice  :  ideas  which,  instead  of  being  derived  from 
the  law,  are  opposed  to  the  law.  For  example,  that  recent  Act 
which  gives  to  a  married  woman  a  right  of  property  in  her  own 
earnings,  evidently  originated  in  the  consciousness  that  the  natural 
connexion  between  labour  expended  and  benefit  enjoyed,  is  one 
which  should  be  maintained  in  all  cases.  The  reformed  law  did 
not  create  the  right,  but  recognition  of  the  right  created  the 
reformed  law. 

Thus,  historical  evidences  of  five  different  kinds  unite  in  teaching 
that,  confused  as  are  the  popular  notions  concerning  rights,  and 
including,  as  they  do,  a  great  deal  which  should  be  excluded,  yet 
they  shadow  forth  a  truth. 

It  remains  now  to  consider  the  original  source  of  this  truth. 
In  a  previous  paper  I  have  spoken  of  the  open  secret,  that  there 
can  be  no  social  phenomena  but  what,  if  we  analyze  them  to 
the  bottom,  bring  us  down  to  the  laws  of  life ;  and  that  there  can 
be  no  true  understanding  of  them  without  reference  to  the  laws  of 
life.  Let  us,  then,  transfer  this  question  of  natural  rights  from  the 
court  of  politics  to  the  court  of  science — the  science  of  life.  The 
reader  need  feel  no  alarm  :  its  simplest  and  most  obvious  facts  will 
suffice.  We  will  contemplate  first  the  general  conditions  to  indi¬ 
vidual  life  ;  and  then  the  general  conditions  to  social  life.  W e  shall 
find  that  both  yield  the  same  verdict. 

Animal  life  involves  waste  ;  waste  must  be  met  by  repair ;  re¬ 
pair  implies  nutrition.  Again,  nutrition  presupposes  obtainment  of 
food  ;  food  cannot  begot  without  powers  of  prehension,  and,  usually, 
of  locomotion  ;  and  that  these  powers  may  achieve  their  ends,  there 
must  be  freedom  to  move  about.  If  you  shut  up  a  mammal  in  a 
small  space,  or  tie  its  limbs  together,  or  take  from  it  the  food  it  has 
procured,  you  eventually,  by  persistence  in  one  or  other  of  these 
courses,  cause  its  death.  Passing  a  certain  point,  hindrance  to  the 

*  “The  Methods  of  Jurisprudence:  an  Introductory  Lecture  at  University 
College,  London,”  October  31,  1882. 


96 


TIIE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


-  ■  < 

fulfilment  of  these  requirements  is  fatal.  And  all  this,  which  holds 
of  the  higher  animals  at  large,  of  course  holds  of  man. 

If  we  adopt  pessimism  as  a  creed,  and  with  it  accept  the  impli¬ 
cation  that  life  in  general  being  an  evil  should  be  put  an  end  to, 
then  there  is  no  ethical  warrant  for  these  actions  by  which  life  is 
maintained  :  the  whole  question  drops.  But  if  we  adopt  either  the 
optimist  view  or  the  meliorist  view — if  we  say  that  life  on  the 
whole  brings  more  pleasure  than  pain ;  or  that  it  is  on  the  way 
to  become  such  that  it  will  yield  more  pleasure  than  pain ;  then 
these  actions  by  which  life  is  maintained  are  justified,  and  there 
results  a  warrant  for  the  freedom  to  perform  them.  Those  who 
hold  that  life  is  valuable,  hold,  by  implication,  that  men  ought  not 
to  be  prevented  from  carrying  on  life-sustaining  activities.  In 
other  words,  if  it  is  said  to  be  “  right  ”  that  they  should  carry  them 
on,  then,  by  permutation,  we  get  the  assertion  that  they  “  have  a 
right”  to  carry  them  on.  Clearly  the  conception  of  “  natural  rights  ” 
originates  in  recognition  of  the  truth  that  if  life  is  justifiable,  there 
must  be  a  justification  for  the  performance  of  acts  essential  to  its 
preservation ;  and,  therefore,  a  justification  for  those  liberties  and 
claims  which  make  such  acts  possible. 

But  being  true  of  other  creatures  as  of  man,  this  is  a  proposi¬ 
tion  lacking  ethical  character.  Ethical  character  arises  only  with 
the  distinction  between  what  the  individual  may  do  in  carrying  on 
his  life- sustaining  activities,  and  what  he  may  not  do.  This  dis¬ 
tinction  obviously  results  from  the  presence  of  his  fellows.  Among 
those  who  are  in  close  proximity,  or  even  at  some  distance  apart,  the 
doings  of  each  are  apt  to  interfere  with  the  doings  of  others  ;  and 
in  the  absence  of  proof  that  some  may  do  what  they  will  without 
limit,  while  others  may  not,  mutual  limitation  is  necessitated.  The 
non-ethical  form  of  the  right  to  pursue  ends,  passes  into  the  ethical 
form,  when  there  is  recognized  the  difference  between  acts  which 
can  be  performed  without  transgressing  the  limits,  and  others  which 
cannot  be  so  performed. 

This,  which  is  the  a  priori  conclusion,  is  the  conclusion  yielded 
d  posteriori ,  when  we  study  the  doings  of  the  uncivilized.  In  its 
vaguest  form,  mutual  limitation  of  spheres  of  action,  and  the  ideas 
and  sentiments  associated  with  it,  are  seen  in  the  relations  of  groups 
to  one  another.  Habitually  there  come  to  be  established,  certain 
bounds  to  the  territories  within  which  each  tribe  obtains  its  liveli¬ 
hood  ;  and  these  bounds,  when  not  respected,  are  defended.  Among 


THE  GREAT  POLITICAL  SUPERSTITION. 


97 


the  Wood-Veddahs,  who  have  no  political  organization,  the  small 
clans  have  their  respective  portions  of  forest ;  and  “  these  conven¬ 
tional  allotments  are  always  honourably  recognized.”*  Of  the 
nngoverned  tribes  of  Tasmania,  we  are  told  that  “  their  hunting 
grounds  were  all  determined,  and  trespassers  were  liable  to 
attack.”f  And,  manifestly,  the  quarrels  caused  among  tribes  by 
intrusions  on  one  another’s  territories,  tend,  in  the  long  run,  to  fix 
bounds  and  to  give  a  certain  sanction  to  them.  As  with  each  in¬ 
habited  area,  so  with  each  inhabiting  group.  A  death  in  one, 
rightly  or  wrongly  ascribed  to  somebody  in  another,  prompts 
“the  sacred  duty  of  blood-revenge  ;  ”  and  though  retaliations  are 
thus  made  chronic,  some  restraint  is  put  on  new  aggressions. 
Like  causes  worked  like  effects  in  those  early  stages  of  civilized 
societies,  during  which  families  or  clans,  rather  than  individuals, 
were  the  political  units ;  and  during  which  each  family  or  clan  had 
to  maintain  itself  and  its  possessions  against  others  such.  This 
mutual  restraint,  which  in  the  nature  of  things  arises  between  small 
communities,  similarly  arises  between  individuals  in  each  com¬ 
munity  ;  and  the  ideas  and  usages  appropriate  to  the  one  are  more 
or  less  appropriate  to  the  other.  Though  within  each  group  there 
is  ever  a  tendency  for  the  stronger  to  aggress  on  the  weaker ;  yet, 
in  most  cases,  consciousness  of  the  evils  resulting  from  aggressive 
conduct  serves  to  restrain.  Everywhere  among  primitive  peoples, 
trespasses  are  followed  by  counter-trespasses.  Says  Turner  of  the 
Tannese,  “  adultery  and  some  other  crimes  are  kept  in  check  by  the 
fear  of  club-law.” J  Fitzroy  tells  us  that  the  Patagonian,  “if  he 
does  not  injure  or  offend  his  neighbour,  is  not  interfered  with  by 
others  :  ”§  personal  vengeance  being  the  penalty  for  injury.  We 
read  of  the  Uaupes  that  “  they  have  very  little  law  of  any  kind  ; 
but  what  they  have  is  of  strict  retaliation, — an  eye  for  an  eye  and 
a  tooth  for  a  tooth.” ||  And  that  the  lex  talionis  tends  to  establish 
a  distinction  between  what  each  member  of  the  community  may 
safely  do  and  what  he  may  not  safely  do,  and  consequently  to  give 
sanctions  to  actions  within  a  certain  range  but  not  beyond  that 
range,  is  obvious.  Though,  says  Schoolcraft  of  the  Chippewayans, 
they  “  have  no  regular  government,  as  every  man  is  lord  in  his 

*  Tennant,  Ceylon  ;  an  Account  of  the  Island,  Sfc.,  ii.  440. 

+  Bon  wick,  J.,  Daily  Life  and  Origin  of  the  Tasmanians ,  83. 

J  Polynesia ,  p.  86. 

§  Voyages  of  the  Adventure  and  Beagle,  ii.  167. 

||  Wallace,  A.  R.,  Travels  on  Amazon  and  Bio  Negro,  p.  499. 


93 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


own  family,  tliey  are  influenced  more  or  less  by  certain  principles 
which  conduce  to  their  general  benefit : one  of  the  principles 
named  being  recognition  of  private  property. 

How  mutual  limitation  of  activities  originates  the  ideas  and 
sentiments  implied  by  the  phrase  “  natural  rights,”  we  are  shown 
most  distinctly  by  the  few  peaceful  tribes  which  have  either 
nominal  governments  or  none  at  all.  Beyond  those  facts  which 
illustrate  scrupulous  regard  for  one  another’s  claims  among  the 
Todas,  Santals,  Lepchas,  Bodo,  Chakmas,  Jakuns,  Arafuras,  &c., 
we  have  the  fact  that  the  utterly  uncivilized  Wood-Veddahs, 
without  any  social  organization  at  all,  “  think  it  perfectly  incon¬ 
ceivable  that  any  person  should  ever  take  that  which  does  not 
belong  to  him,  or  strike  his  fellow,  or  say  anything  that  is 
untrue.” f  Thus  it  becomes  clear,  alike  from  analysis  of  causes  and 
observation  of  facts,  that  while  the  positive  element  in  the  right 
to  carry  on  life-sustaining  activities,  originates  from  the  laws  of 
life,  that  negative  element  which  gives  ethical  character  to  it, 
originates  from  the  conditions  produced  by  social  aggregation. 

So  alien  to  the  truth,  indeed,  is  the  alleged  creation  of  rights 
by  government,  that,  contrariwise,  rights  having  been  established 
more  or  less  clearly  before  government  arises,  become  obscured  as 
government  develops  along  with  that  militant  activity  which,  both 
by  the  taking  of  slaves  and  the  establishment  of  ranks,  produces 
status ;  and  the  recognition  of  rights  begins  again  to  get  definite¬ 
ness  only  as  fast  as  militancy  ceases  to  be  chronic  and  govern¬ 
mental  power  declines. 

When  we  turn  from  the  life  of  the  individual  to  the  life  of  the 
society,  the  same  lesson  is  taught  us. 

Though  mere  love  of  companionship  prompts  primitive  men  to 
live  in  groups,  yet  the  chief  prompter  is  experience  of  the  advan¬ 
tages  to  be  derived  from  co-operation.  Omwlint  condition  only 
can  co-operation  arise  P  Evidently  on  condition  that  those  who 
join  their  efforts  severally  gain  by  doing  so.  If,  as  in  the  simplest 
cases,  they  unite  to  achieve  something  which  each  by  himself  can¬ 
not  achieve,  or  can  achieve  less  readily,  it  must  be  on  the  tacit 
understanding,  either  that  they  shall  share  the  benefit  (as  when 

*  Schoolcraft.  Expedition  to  the  Sources  of  the  Mississippi ,  y.  177. 
f  B.  F.  Hartshorne,  Fortnightly  Review ,  March  1876.  See  also  H.  C.  Sirr, 
Ceylon  and  the  Ceylonese ,  ii.  219. 


THE  GREAT  POLITICAL  SUPERSTITION. 


99 


game  is  caught  by  a  party  of  them)  or  that  if  one  reaps  all  the 
benefit  now  (as  in  building  a  hut  or  clearing  a  plot)  the  others 
shall  severally  reap  equivalent  benefits  in  their  turns.  When, 
instead  of  efforts  joined  in  doing  the  same  thing,  different  things 
are  effected  by  them — when  division  of  labour  arises,  with  accom¬ 
panying  barter  of  products,  the  arrangement  implies  that  each,  in 
return  for  something  which  he  has  in  superfluous  quantity,  gets 
an  approximate  equivalent  of  something  which  he  wants.  If  he 
hands  over  the  one  and  does  not  get  the  other,  future  proposals  to 
exchange  will  meet  with  no  response.  There  will  be  a  reversion 
to  that  rudest  condition  in  which  each  makes  everything  for  him¬ 
self.  Hence  the  possibility  of  co-operation  depends  on  fulfilment 
of  contract,  tacit  or  overt. 

How  this  which  we  see  must  hold  of  the  very  first  step  towards 
that  industrial  organization  by  which  the  life  of  a  society  is  main¬ 
tained,  must  hold  more  or  less  fully  throughout  its  development. 
Though  the  militant  type  of  organization,  with  its  system  of  status 
produced  by  chronic  war,  greatly  obscures  these  relations  of  con¬ 
tract,  yet  they  remain  partially  in  force.  They  still  hold  between 
freemen,  and  between  the  heads  of  those  small  groups  which  form 
the  units  of  early  societies ;  and,  in  a  measure,  they  still  hold  within 
these  small  groups  themselves ;  since  survival  of  them  as  groups, 
implies  such  recognition  of  the  claims  of  their  members,  even 
when  slaves,  that  in  return  for  their  labours  they  get  sufficiencies 
of  food,  clothing,  and  protection.  And  when,  with  diminution  of 
warfare  and  growth  of  trade,  voluntary  co-operation  more  and 
more  replaces  compulsory  co-operation,  and  the  carrying  on  of 
social  life  by  exchange  under  agreement,  partially  suspended  for  a 
time,  gradually  re-establishes  itself;  its  re-establishment  makes 
possible  that  vast  elaborate  industrial  organization  by  which  a 
great  nation  is  sustained. 

For  in  proportion  as  contracts  are  unhindered  and  the  perform¬ 
ance  of  them  certain,  the  growth  is  great  and  the  social  life 
active.  It  is  not  now  by  one  or  other  of  two  individuals  who  con¬ 
tract,  that  the  evil  effects  of  breach  of  contract  are  experienced. 
In  an  advanced  society,  they  are  experienced  by  entire  classes  of 
producers  and  distributors,  which  have  arisen  through  division  of 
labour;  and,  eventually,  they  are  experienced  by  everybody.  Ask 
on  what  condition  it  is  that  Birmingham  devotes  itself  to  manu¬ 
facturing  hardware,  or  part  of  Staffordshire  to  making  pottery,  or 


100 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


Lancashire  to  weaving  cotton.  Ask  how  the  .rural  people  who  here 
grow  wheat  and  there  pasture  cattle,  find  it  possible  to  occupy 
themselves  in  their  special  businesses.  These  groups  can  severally 
thus  act  only  if  each  gets  from  the  others  in  exchange  for  its  own 
surplus  product,  due  shares  of  their  surplus  products.  No  longer 
directly  effected  by  barter,  this  obtainment  of  their  respective 
shares  of  one  another’s  products  is  indirectly  effected  by  money ; 
and  if  we  ask  how  each  division  of  producers  gets  its  due  amount 
of  the  required  money,  the  answer  is — by  fulfilment  of  contract. 
If  Leeds  makes  woollens  and  does  not,  by  fulfilment  of  contract, 
receive  the  means  of  obtaining  from  agricultural  districts  the 
needful  quantity  of  food,  it  must  starve,  and  stop  producing 
woollens.  If  South  Wales  smelts  iron  and  there  comes  no  equi¬ 
valent  agreed  upon,  enabling  it  to  get  fabrics  for  clothing,  its 
industry  must  cease.  And  so  throughout,  in  general  and  in 
detail.  That  mutual  dependence  of  parts  which  we  see  in  social 
organization,  as  in  individual  organization,  is  possible  only  on  con¬ 
dition  that  while  each  part  does  the  particular  kind  of  work  it  has 
become  adjusted  to,  it  receives  its  proportion  of  those  materials 
required  for  repair  and  growth,  which  all  the  other  parts  have 
joined  to  produce :  such  proportion  being  settled  by  bargaining. 
Moreover,  it  is  by  fulfilment  of  contract  that  there  is  effected  a 
balancing  of  all  the  various  products  to  the  various  needs — the 
large  manufacture  of  knives  and  the  small  manufacture  of  lancets ; 
the  great  growth  of  wheat  and  the  little  growth  of  mustard-seed. 
The  check  on  undue  production  of  each  commodity,  results  from 
finding  that  after  a  certain  quantity,  no  one  will  agree  to  take  any 
further  quantity  on  terms  that  yield  an  adequate  money  equivalent. 
And  so  there  is  prevented  a  useless  expenditure  of  labour  in  pro¬ 
ducing  that  which  society  does  not  want. 

Lastly,  we  have  to  note  the  still  more  significant  fact  that  the 
condition  under  which  only,  any  specialized  group  of  workers  can 
grow  when  the  community  needs  more  of  its  particular  kind  of 
work,  is  that  contracts  shall  be  free  and  fulfilment  of  them 
enforced.  If  when,  from  lack  of  material,  Lancashire  failed  to 
supply  the  usual  quantity  of  cotton-goods,  there  had  been  such 
interference  with  contracts  as  prevented  Yorkshire  from  asking 
a  greater  price  for  its  woollens,  which  it  was  enabled  to  do  by  the 
greater  demand  for  them,  there  would  have  been  no  temptation  to 
put  more  capital  into  the  woollen  manufacture,  no  increase  in  the 


THE  GREAT  POLITICAL  SUPERSTITION. 


101 


amount  of  machinery  and  number  of  artizans  employed,  and  no 
increase  of  woollens :  the  consequence  being  that  the  whole  com¬ 
munity  would  have  suffered  from  not  having  deficient  cottons 
replaced  by  extra  woollens.  What  serious  injury  may  result  to  a 
nation  if  its  members  are  hindered  from  contracting  with  one 
another,  was  well  shown  in  the  contrast  between  England  and 
France  in  respect  of  railways.  Here,  though  obstacles  were  at 
first  raised  by  classes  predominant  in  the  legislature,  the  obstacles 
were  not  such  as  prevented  capitalists  from  investing,  engineers 
from  furnishing  directive  skill,  or  contractors  from  undertaking 
works ;  and  the  high  interest  originally  obtained  on  investments, 
the  great  profits  made  by  contractors,  and  the  large  payments 
received  by  engineers,  led  to  that  drafting  of  money,  energy,  and 
ability,  into  railway-making,  which  rapidly  developed  our  railway- 
system,  to  the  enormous  increase  of  our  national  prosperity.  But 
when  M.  Thiers,  then  Minister  of  Public  Wbrks,  came  over  to 
inspect,  and  having  been  taken  about  by  Mr.  Yignoles,  said  to  him 
when  leaving  : — “  I  do  not  think  railways  are  suited  to  France,”*  , 
there  resulted,  from  the  consequent  policy  of  hindering  free  contract, 
a  delay  of  “  eight  or  ten  years  ”  in  that  material  progress  which 
France  experienced  when  railways  were  made. 

What  do  all  these  facts  means  ?  They  mean  that  for  the 
healthful  activity  and  due  proportioning  of  those  industries, 
occupations,  professions,  which  maintain  and  aid  the  life  of  a 
society,  there  must,  in  the  first  place,  be  few  restrictions  on  men’s 
liberties  to  make  agreements  with  one  another,  and  there  must,  in 
the  second  place,  be  an  enforcement  of  the  agreements  which  they 
do  make.  As  we  have  seen,  the  checks  naturally  arising  to  each 
man’s  actions  when  men  become  associated,  are  those  only  which 
result  from  mutual  limitation ;  and  there  consequently  can  be  no 
resulting  check  to  the  contracts  they  voluntarily  make :  inter¬ 
ference  with  these  is  interference  with  those  rights  to  free  action 
which  remain  to  each  when  the  rights  of  others  are  fully  recognized. 
And  then,  as  we  have  seen,  enforcement  of  their  rights  implies 
enforcement  of  contracts  made ;  since  breach  of  contract  is  indirect 
aggression.  If,  when  a  customer  on  one  side  of  the  counter  asks 
a  shopkeeper  on  the  other  for  a  shilling’s  worth  of  his  goods,  and, 
while  the  shopkeeper’s  back  is  turned,  walks  off  with  the  goods 

*  Address  of  0.  B.  Yignoles,  Esq.,  F.R.S.,  on  his  Election  as  President  of  the 
Institution  of  Civil  Engineers,  Session  1869-70,  p.  53. 


102 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


without  leaving  the  shilling  he  tacitly  contracted  to  give,  his  act 
differs  in  no  essential  way  from  robbery.  In  each  such  case  the 
individual  injured  is  deprived  of  something  he  possessed,  without 
receiving  the  equivalent  something  bargained  for ;  and  is  in  the 
state  of  having  expended  his  labour  without  getting  benefit — has 
had  an  essential  condition  to  the  maintenance  of  life  infringed. 

Thus,  then,  it  results  that  to  recognize  and  enforce  the  rights 
of  individuals,  is  at  the  same  time  to  recognize  and  enforce  the 
conditions  to  a  normal  social  life.  There  is  one  vital  requirement 
for  both. 

Before  turning  to  those  corollaries  which  have  practical  applica¬ 
tions,  let  us  observe  how  the  special  conclusions  drawn  converge 
to  the  one  general  conclusion  originally  foreshadowed — glancing  at 
them  in  reversed  order. 

We  have  just  found  that  the  pre-requisite  to  individual  life  is 
in  a  double  sense  the  pre-requisite  to  social  life.  The  life  of  a 
society,  in  whichever  of  two  senses  conceived,  depends  on  mainten¬ 
ance  of  individual  rights.  If  it  is  nothing  more  than  the  sum  of 
the  lives  of  citizens,  this  implication  is  obvious.  If  it  consists  of 
those  many  unlike  activities  which  citizens  carry  on  in  mutual 
dependence,  still  this  aggregate  impersonal  life  rises  or  falls 
according  as  the  rights  of  individuals  are  enforced  or  denied. 

Study  of  men’s  politico-ethical  ideas  and  sentiments,  leads  to 
allied  conclusions.  Primitive  peoples  of  various  types  show  us 
that  before  governments  exist,  immemorial  customs  recognize 
private  claims  and  justify  maintenance  of  them.  Codes  of  law 
independently  evolved  by  different  nations,  agree  in  forbidding 
certain  trespasses  on  the  persons,  properties,  and  liberties  of 
citizens ;  and  their  correspondences  imply,  not  an  artificial  source 
for  individual  rights,  but  a  natural  source.  Along  with  social 
development,  the  formulating  in  law  of  the  rights  pre-established 
by  custom,  becomes  more  definite  and  elaborate.  At  the  same 
time,  Government  undertakes  to  an  increasing  extent  the  business 
of  enforcing  them.  While  it  has  been  becoming  a  better  protector, 
Government  has  been  becoming  less  aggressive — has  more  and 
more  diminished  its  intrusions  on  men’s  spheres  of  private  action. 
And,  lastly,  as  in  past  times  laws  were  avowedly  modified  to  fit 
better  with  current  ideas  of  equity  j  so  now,  law-reformers  are 


THE  GREAT  POLITICAL  SUPERSTITION.  103 

guided  by  ideas  of  equity  which  are  not  derived  from  law  but  to 
which  law  has  to  conform. 

Here,  then,  we  have  a  politico-ethical  theory  justified  alike  by 
analysis  and  by  history.  What  have  we  against  it  ?  A  fashionable 
counter-theory  which  proves  to  be  unjustifiable.  On  the  one  hand, 
while  we  find  that  individual  life  and  social  life  both  imply  main¬ 
tenance  of  the  natural  relation  between  efforts  and  benefits;  we 
also  find  that  this  natural  relation,  recognized  before  Government 
existed,  has  been  all  along  asserting  and  re-asserting  itself,  and 
obtaining  better  recognition  in  codes  of  law  and  system's  of  ethics. 
On  the  other  hand,  those  who,  denying  natural  rights,  commit 
themselves  to  the  assertion  that  rights  are  artificially  created  by 
law,  are  not  only  flatly  contradicted  by  facts,  but  their  assertion  is 
self-destructive  :  the  endeavour  to  substantiate  it,  when  challenged 
involves  them  in  manifold  absurdities. 

Nor  is  this  all.  The  re-institution  of  a  vague  popular  concep¬ 
tion  m  a  definite  form  on  a  scientific  basis,  leads  us  to  a  rational 
view  of  the  relation  between  the  wills  of  majorities  and  minorities. 
It  turns  out  that  those  co-operations  in  which  all  can  voluntarily 
unite,  and  in  the  carrying  on  of  which  the  will  of  the  majority  is 
rightly  supreme,  are  co-operations  for  maintaining  the  conditions 
requisite  to  individual  and  social  life.  Defence  of  the  society  as  a 
whole  against  external  invaders,  has  for  its  remote  end  to  preserve 
each  citizen  in  possession  of  such  means  as  he  has  for  satisfying 
his  desires,  and  m  possession  of  such  liberty  as  he  has  for  getting 
fuither  means.  And  defence  of  each  citizen  against  internal 
invaders,  from  murderers  down  to  those  who  inflict  nuisances  on 
their  neighbours,  has  obviously  the  like  end— an  end  desired  by 
every  one  save  the  criminal  and  disorderly.  Hence  it  follows  that 
for  maintenance  of  this  vital  principle,  alike  of  individual  life  and 
social  life,  subordination  of  minority  to  majority  is  legitimate ;  as 
implying  only  such  a  trenching  on  the  freedom  and  property  of 
each,  as  is  requisite  for  the  better  protecting  of  his  freedom  and 
property..  At  the  same  time  it  follows  that  such  subordination  is 
not  legitimate  beyond  this;  since,  implying  as  it  does  a  greater 
aggression  upon  the  individual  than  is  requisite  for  protecting  him, 

it  involves  a  breach  of  the  vital  principle  which  is  to  be  main 
tamed. 


Thus  we  come  round  again  to  the  proposition  that  the  assumed 


104 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


divine  right  of  parliaments,  and  the  implied  divine  right  of 
majorities,  are  superstitions.  While  men  have  abandoned  the  old 
theory  respecting  the  source  of  State-authority,  they  have  retained 
a  belief  in  that  unlimited  extent  of  State-authority  which  rightly 
accompanied  the  old  theory,  but  does  not  rightly  accompany  the 
new  one.  Unrestricted  power  over  subjects,  rationally  ascribed  to 
the  ruling  man  when  he  was  held  to  be  a  deputy-god,  is  now 
ascribed  to  the  ruling  body,  the  deput-y-godhood  of  which  nobody 
asserts. 

Opponents  will,  possibly,  contend  that  discussions  about  the 
origin  and  limits  of  governmental  authority  are  mere  pedantries. 
“  Government,”  they  may  perhaps  say,  “  is  bound  to  use  all  the 
means  it  has,  or  can  get,  for  furthering  the  general  happiness.  Its 
aim  must  be  utility ;  and  it  is  warranted  in  employing  whatever 
measures  are  needful  for  achieving  useful  ends.  The  welfare 
of  the  people  is  the  supreme  law ;  and  legislators  are  not 
to  be  deterred  from  obeying  that  law  by  questions  concerning  the 
source  and  range  of  their  power.”  Is  there  really  an  escape  here  ? 
or  may  this  opening  be  effectually  closed  ? 

The  essential  question  raised  is  the  truth  of  the  utilitarian 
theory  as  commonly  held ;  and  the  answer  here  to  be  given  is  that, 
as  commonly  held,  it  is  not  true.  Alike  by  the  statements  of 
utilitarian  moralists,  and  by  the  acts  of  politicians  knowingly  or 
unknowingly  following  their  lead,  it  is  implied  tha.t  utility  is  to  be 
directly  determined  by  simple  inspection  of  the  immediate  facts 
and  estimation  of  probable  results.  Whereas,  utilitarianism  as 
rightly  understood,  implies  guidance  by  the  general  conclusions 
which  analysis  of  experience  yields.  “  Good  and  bad  results  can¬ 
not  be  accidental,  but  must  be  necessary  consequences  of  the 
constitution  of  things;”  and  it  is  “ the  business  of  Moral  Science 
to  deduce,  from  the  laws  of  life  and  the  conditions  of  existence, 
what  kinds  of  action  necessarily  tend  to  produce  happiness,  and 
what  kinds  to  produce  unhappiness.”*  Current  utilitarian  specula¬ 
tion,  like  current  practical  politics,  shows  inadequate  consciousness 
of  natural  causation.  The  habitual  thought  is  that,  in  the  absence 
of  some  obvious  impediment,  things  can  be  done  this  way  or  that 
way ;  and  no  question  is  put  whether  there  is  either  agreement  or 
conflict  with  the  normal  working  of  things. 

The  foregoing  discussions  have,  I  think,  shown  that  the  dictates 

*  Data  of  Ethies,  §  21.  See  also  §§  56-62. 


THE  GREAT  POLITICAL  SUPERSTITION. 


105 


of  utility,  and,  consequently,  the  proper  actions  of  goverments,  are 
not  to  be  settled  by  inspection  of  facts  on  the  surface,  and  accept¬ 
ance  of  their  prim  a  facie  meanings ;  but  are  to  be  settled  by 
reference  to,  and  deduction  from,  fundamental  facts.  The  funda¬ 
mental  facts  to  which  all  rational  judgments  of  utility  must  go 
back,  are  the  facts  that  life  consists  in,  and  is  maintained  by, 
certain  activities  ;  and  that  among  men  in  a  society,  these  activities, 
necessarily  becoming  mutually  limited,  are  to  be  carried  on  by  each 
within  the  limits  thence  arising,  and  not  carried  on  beyond  those 
limits :  the  maintenance  of  the  limits  becoming,  by  consequence, 
the  function  of  the  agency  which  regulates  society.  If  each,  having 
freedom  to  use  his  powers  up  to  the  bounds  fixed  by  the  like  freedom 
of  others,  obtains  from  his  fellow-men  as  much  for  his  services  as 
they  find  them  worth  in  comparison  with  the  services  of  others — if 
contracts  uniformly  fulfilled  bring  to  each  the  share  thus  deter¬ 
mined,  and  he  is  left  secure  in  person  and  possessions  to  satisfy  his 
wants  with  the  proceeds  ;  then  there  is  maintained  the  vital  prin¬ 
ciple  alike  of  individual  life  and  of  social  life.  Further,  there  is 
maintained  the  vital  principle  of  social  progress  ;  inasmuch  as, 
under  such  conditions,  the  individuals  of  most  worth  will  prosper 
and  multiply  more  than  those  of  less  worth.  So  that  utility,  not  as 
empirically  estimated  but  as  rationally  determined,  enjoins  this 
maintenance  of  individual  rights ;  and,  by  implication,  negatives  any 
course  which  traverses  them. 

Here,  then,  we  reach  the  ultimate  interdict  against  meddling 
legislation.  Reduced  to  its  lowest  terms,  every  proposal  to  inter¬ 
fere  with  citizens’  activities  further  than  by  enforcing  their  mutual 
limitations,  is  a  proposal  to  improve  life  by  breaking  through  the 
fundamental  conditions  to  life.  When  some  are  prevented  from 
buying  beer  that  others  may  be  prevented  from  getting  drunk, 
those  who  make  the  law  assume  that  more  good  than  evil  will  result 
from  interference  with  the  normal  relation  between  conduct  and 
consequences,  alike  in  the  few  ill-regulated  and  the  many  well- 
regulated.  A  government  which  takes  fractions  of  the  incomes  of 
multitudinous  people,  for  the  purpose  of  sending  to  the  colonies 
some  who  have  not  prospered  here,  or  for  building  better  industrial 
dwellings,  or  for  making  public  libraries  and  public  museums, 
&c.,  takes  for  granted  that,  not  only  proximately  but  ultimately, 
increased  general  happiness  will  result  from  transgressing  the 

essential  requirement  to  general  happiness — the  requirement  that 
8 


106 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


each  shall  enjoy  all  those  means  to  happiness  which  his  actions, 
carried  on  without  aggression,  have  brought  him.  In  other  cases 
we  do  not  thus  let  the  immediate  blind  us  to  the  remote.  When 
asserting  the  sacred  ness  of  property  against  private  transgressors, 
we  do  not  ask  whether  the  benefit  to  a  hungry  man  who  takes 
bread  from  a  baker’s  shop,  is  or  is  not  greater  than  the  injury 
inflicted  on  the  baker :  we  consider,  not  the  special  effects,  but  the. 
general  effects  which  arise  if  property  is  insecure.  But  when  the 
State  exacts  further  amounts  from  citizens,  or  further  restrains 
their  liberties,  we  consider  only  the  direct  and  proximate  effects, 
and  ignore  the  indirect  and  distant  effects  which  are  caused  when 
these  invasions  of  individual  rights  are  continually  multiplied.  We 
do  not  see  that  by  accumulated  small  infractions  of  them,  the  vital 
conditions  to  life,  individual  and  social,  come  to  be  so  imperfectly 
fulfilled  that  the  life  decays. 

Yet  the  decay  thus  caused  becomes  manifest  where  the  policy  is 
pushed  to  an  extreme.  Any  one  who  studies,  in  the  writings  of 
MM.  Taine  and  de  Tocqueville,  the  state  of  things  which  preceded 
the  French  Revolution,  will  see  that  that  tremendous  catastrophe 
came  about  from  so  excessive  a  regulation  of  men’s  actions  in  all 
their  details,  and  such  an  enormous  drafting  away  of  the  products 
of  their  actions  to  maintain  the  regulating  organization,  that  life 
was  fast  becoming  impracticable.  The  empirical  utilitarianism 
of  that  day,  like  the  empirical  utilitarianism  of  our  day,  differed 
from  rational  utilitarianism  in  this,  that  in  each  successive  case  it 
contemplated  only  the  effects  of  particular  interferences  on  the 
actions  of  particular  classes  of  men,  and  ignored  the  effects  produced 
by  a  multiplicity  of  such  interferences  on  the  lives  of  men  at  large. 
And  if  we  ask  what  then  made,  and  what  now  makes,  this  error 
possible,  we  find  it  to  be  the  political  superstition  that  governmental 
power  is  subject  to  no  restraints. 

When  that  “  divinity  ”  which  “  doth  hedge  a  king,”  and  which 
has  left  a  glamour  around  the  body  inheriting  his  power,  has 
quite  died  away — when  it  begins  to  be  seen  clearly  that,  in  a 
popularly-governed  nation,  the  government  is  simply  a  committee 
of  management ;  it  will  also  be  seen  that  this  committee  of  manage¬ 
ment  has  no  intrinsic  authority.  The  inevitable  conclusion  will  be 
that  its  authority  is  given  by  those  appointing  it ;  and  has  just 
such  bounds  as  they  choose  to  impose.  Along  with  this  will  go  the 
further  conclusion  that  the  laws  it  passes  are  not  in  themselves 


THE  GREAT  POLITICAL  SUPERSTITION.  107 

sacred;  but  that  whatever  sacredness  they  have,  it  is  entirely 
due  to  the  ethical  sanction — an  ethicaLsanction  which,  as  we  find, 
is  derivable  from  the  laws  of  human  life  as  carried  on  under  social 
conditions.  And  there  will  come  the  corollary  that  when  they 
have  not  this  ethical  sanction  they  have  no  sacredness,  and  mav 
rightly  be  challenged. 

The  function  of  Liberalism  in  the  past  was  that  of  putting  a 
limit  to  the  powers  of  kings.  The  function  of  true  Liberalism  in 

the  future  will  be  that  of  putting  a  limit  to  the  powers  of  Parlia¬ 
ments. 


POSTSCRIPT. 


“Do  I  expect  this  doctrine  to  meet  with  any  considerable  accept¬ 
ance  ?  I  wish  I  could  say,  yes ;  but  unhappily  various  reasons 
oblige  me  to  conclude  that  only  here  and  there  a  solitary  citizen 
may  have  his  political  creed  modified.  Of  these  reasons  there  is 
one  from  which  all  the  others  originate. 

This  essential  reason  is  that  the  restriction  of  governmental 
power  within  the  limits  assigned,  is  appropriate  to  the  industrial 
type  of  society  only ;  and,  while  wholly  incongruous  with  the 
militant  type  of  society,  is  partially  incongruous  with  that  semi¬ 
militant  semi-industrial  type,  which  now  characterizes  advanced 
nations.  -A-t  every  stage  of  social  evolution  there  must  exist 
substantial  agreement  between  practices  and  beliefs — real  beliefs 
I  mean,  not  nominal  ones.  Life  can  be  carried  on  only  by  the 
harmonizing  of  thoughts  and  acts.  Either  the  conduct  required 
by  circumstances  must  modify  the  beliefs  to  fit  it;  or  else  the 
changed  beliefs  must  eventually  modify  the  conduct. 

Hence  if  the  maintenance  of  social  life  under  one  set  of  condi¬ 
tions,  necessitates  extreme  subordination  to  a  ruler  and  entire  faith 
in  him,  there  will  be  established  a  theory  that  the  subordination 
and  the  faith  are  proper — nay  imperative.  Conversely  if,  under 
other  conditions,  great  subjection  of  citizens  to  government  is  no 
longer  needful  for  preservation  of  the  national  life— if,  contrari 
wise,  the  national  life  becomes  larger  in  amount  and  higher  in 
quality  as  fast  as  citizens  gain  increased  freedom  of  action ;  there 
comes  a  progressive  modification  of  their  political  theory,  having 
the  result  of  diminishing  their  faith  in  governmental  action^ 
increasing  their  tendency  to  question  governmental  authority,  and 
leading  them  in  more  numerous  cases  to  resist  governmental 
power:  involving,  eventually,  an  established  doctrine  of  limitation. 


POSTSCRIPT. 


109 


Thus  it  is  not  to  be  expected  that  current  opinion  respecting 
governmental  authority,  can  at  present  be  modified  to  any  great 
extent.  But  let  us  look  at  the  necessities  of  the  case  more 
closely. 

Manifestly  the  success  of  an  army  depends  very  much  on  the 
faith  of  the  soldiers  in  their  general :  disbelief  in  his  ability  will 
go  far  towards  paralyzing  them  in  battle;  wdiile  absolute  confi¬ 
dence  in  him  will  make  them  fulfil  their  respective  parts  with 
courage  and  energy.  If,  as  in  the  normally-developed  militant 
type  of  society,  the  ruler  in  peace  and  the  leader  in  war  are  one 
and  the  same,  this  confidence  in  him  extends  from  military  action 
to  civil  action ;  and  the  society,  in  large  measure  identical  with 
the  army,  willingly  accepts  his  judgments  as  law-giver.  Even 
where  the  civil  head,  ceasing  to  be  the  military  head,  does  his 
generalship  by  deputy,  there  still  clings  to  him  the  traditional 
faith. 

Similarly  with  the  willingness  to  obey.  Other  things  equal  an 
army  of  insubordinate  soldiers  fails  before  an  army  of  subordinate 
soldiers.  Those  whose  obedience  to  their  leader  is  perfect  and 
prompt,  are  obviously  more  likely  to  succeed  in  battle  than  are 
those  who  disregard  the  commands  issued  to  them.  And  as  with 
the  army  so  with  the  society  as  a  whole  ;  success  in  war  must 
largely  depend  on  that  conformity  to  the  ruler’s  will  which  brings 
men  and  money  when  wanted,  and  adjusts  all  conduct  to  his 
needs. 

Thus  by  survival  of  the  fittest,  the  militant  type  of  society 
becomes  characterized  by  profound  faith  in  the  governing  power, 
joined  with  a  loyalty  causing  submission  to  it  in  all  matters  what¬ 
ever.  And  there  must  tend  to  be  established  among  those  who 
speculate  about  political  affairs  in  a  militant  society,  a  theory 
giving  form  to  the  needful  ideas  and  feelings;  accompanied  by 
assertions  that  the  law -giver  if  not  divine  in  nature  is  divinely 
directed,  and  that  unlimited  obedience  to  him  is  divinely  ordered. 

Change  in  the  ideas  and  feelings  which  thus  become  charac- 
terestic  of  the  militant  form  of  organisation,  can  take  place  only 
where  circumstances  favour  development  of  the  industrial  form  of 
organization.  Being  carried  on  by  voluntary  co-operation  instead 
of  by  compulsory  co-operation,  industrial  life  as  we  now  know  it, 
habituates  men  to  independent  activities,  leads  them  to  enforce 


110 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


their  own  claims  while  respecting  the  claims  of  others,  strengthens 
the  consciousness  of  personal  rights,  and  prompts  them  to  resist 
excesses  of  governmental  control.  But  since  the  circumstances 
which  render  war  less  frequent  arise  but  slowly,  and  since  the 
modifications  of  nature  caused  by  the  transition  from  a  life  pre¬ 
dominantly  militant  to  a  life  predominantly  industrial  can  there¬ 
fore  go  on  only  little  by  little,  it  happens  that  the  old  sentiments 
and  ideas  give  place  to  new  ones,  by  small  degrees  only.  And 
there  are  several  reasons  why  the  transition  not  only  is,  but 
ought  to  be,  gradual.  Here  are  some  of  them. 

In  the  primitive  man  and  in  man  but  little  civilized,  there  does 
not  exist  the  nature  required  for  extensive  voluntary  co-operations. 
Efforts  willingly  united  with  those  of  others  for  a  common  advan¬ 
tage,  imply,  if  the  undertaking  is  large,  a  perseverance  he  does  not 
possess.  Moreover,  where  the  benefits  to  be  achieved  are  distant 
and  unfamiliar,  as  are  many  for  which  men  now-a-days  combine, 
there  needs  a  strength  of  constructive  imagination  not  to  be  found 
in  the  minds  of  the  uncivilized.  And  yet  again,  great  combina¬ 
tions  of  a  private  kind  for  wholesale  production,  for  large  enterprises, 
and  for  other  purposes,  require  a  graduated  subordination  of  the 
united  workers — a  graduated  subordination  such  as  that  which 
militancy  produces.  In  other  words,  the  way  to  the  developed 
industrial  type  as  we  now  know  it,  is  through  the  militant  type ; 
which,  by  discipline  generates  in  long  ages  the  power  of  con¬ 
tinuous  application,  the  willingness  to  act  under  direction  (now  no 
longer  coercive  but  agreed  to  under  contract)  and  the  habit  of 
achieving  large  results  by  organizations. 

Consequently,  during  long  stages  of  social  evolution  there  needs, 
for  the  management  of  all  matters  but  the  simplest,  a  govern¬ 
mental  power  great  in  degree  and  wide  in  range,  with  a  correlative 
faith  in  it  and  obedience  to  it.  Hence  the  fact  that,  as  the  records 
of  early  civilizations  show  us,  and  as  we  are  shown  in  the  East  at 
present,  large  undertakings  can  be  achieved  only  by  State-action. 
And  hence  the  fact  that  only  little  by  little  can  voluntary  co-opera¬ 
tion  replace  compulsory  co-operation,  and  rightly  bring  about  a 
correlative  decrease  of  faith  in  governmental  ability  and  authority. 

Chiefly,  however,  the  maintenance  of  this  faith  is  necessitated  by 
the  maintenance  of  fitness  for  war.  This  involves  continuance  of 
such  confidence  in  the  ruling  agency,  and  such  subordination  to  it, 


POSTSCRIPT. 


Ill 


as  may  enable  it  to  wield  all  tbe  forces  of  the  society  on  occasions 
of  attack  or  defence ;  and  there  must  survive  a  political  theory 
justifying  the  faith  and  the  obedience.  While  their  sentiments  and 
ideas  are  of  kinds  which  perpetually  endanger  peace,  it  is  requisite 
that  men  should  have  such  belief  in  the  authority  of  government 
as  shall  give  it  adequate  coercive  power  over  them  for  war  pur¬ 
poses — a  belief  in  its  authority  which  inevitably,  at  the  same  time, 
gives  it  coercive  power  over  them  for  other  purposes. 

Thus,  as  said  at  first,  the  fundamental  reason  for  not  expecting 
much  acceptance  of  the  doctrine  set  forth,  is  that  we  have  at 
present  but  partially  emerged  from  the  militant  regime  and  have 
but  partially  entered  on  that  industrial  regime  to  which  this 
doctrine  is  proper. 

So  long  as  the  religion  of  enmity  predominates  over  the 
religion  of  amity,  the  current  political  superstition  must  hold  its 
ground.  While  throughout  Europe,  the  early  culture  of  the 
ruling  classes  is  one  which  every  day  of  the  week  holds  up  for 
admiration  those  who  in  ancient  times  achieved  the  greatest  feats 
in  battle,  and  only  on  Sunday  repeats  the  injunction  to  put  up  the 
sword — while  these  ruling  classes  are  subject  to  a  moral  discipline 
consisting  of  six-sevenths  pagan  example  and  one-seventh 
Christian  precept ;  there  is  no  likelihood  that  there  will  arise  such 
international  relations  as  may  make  a  decline  in  governmental 
power  practicable,  and  a  corresponding  modification  of  political 
theory  acceptable.  While  among  ourselves  the  administration  of 
colonial  affairs  is  such  that  native  tribes  who  retaliate  on  English¬ 
men  by  whom  they  have  been  injured,  are  punished,  not  on  their 
own  savage  principle  of  life  for  life,  but  on  the  improved  civilized 
principle  of  wholesale  massacre  in  return  for  single  murder,  there 
is  little  chance  that  a  political  doctrine  consistent  only  with 
nnaggressive  conduct  will  gain  currency.  While  the  creed  men 
profess  is  so  interpreted  that  one  of  them  who  at  home  addresses 
missionary  meetings,  seeks,  when  abroad,  to  foment  a  quarrel  with 
an  adjacent  people  whom  he  wishes  to  subjugate,  and  then 
receives  public  honours  after  his  death,  it  is  not  likely  that  the 
relations  of  our  society  to  other  societies  will  become  such  that 
there  can  spread  to  any  extent  that  doctrine  of  limited  govern¬ 
mental  functions  accompanying  the  diminished  governmental 
authority  proper  to  a  peaceful  state.  A  nation  which,  interested 


112 


THE  MAN  VERSUS  THE  STATE. 


in  ecclesiastical  squabbles  about  the  ceremonies  of  its  humane  cult, 
cares  so  little  about  the  essence  of  that  cult  that  fillibustering  in  its 
colonies  receives  applause  rather  than  reprobation,  and  is  not 
denounced  even  by  the  priests  of  its  religion  of  love,  is  a  nation 
which  must  continue  to  suffer  from  internal  aggressions,  alike  of 
individuals  on  one  another  and  of  the  State  on  individuals.  It  is 
impossible  to  unite  the  blessings  of  equity  at  home  with  the 
commission  of  inequities  abroad. 

Of  course  there  will  arise  the  question — Why,  then,  enunciate 
and  emphasize  a  theory  at  variance  with  the  theory  adapted  to  our 
present  state  P 

Beyond  the  general  reply  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  one  who 
regards  a  doctrine  as  true  and  important,  to  do  what  he  can 
towards  diffusing  it,  leaving  the  result  to  be  what  it  may  be,  there 
are  several  more  special  replies,  each  of  which  is  sufficient. 

In  the  first  place  an  ideal,  far  in  advance  of  practicability 
though  it  may  be,  is  always  needful  for  right  guidance.  If,  amid 
all  those  compromises  which  the  circumstances  of  the  times 
necessitate,  or  are  thought  to  necessitate,  there  exist  no  true 
conceptions  of  better  and  worse  in  social  organization — if  nothing 
beyond  the  exigencies  of  the  moment  are  attended  to,  and  the 
proximately  best  is  habitually  identified  with  the  ultimately  best ; 
there  cannot  be  any  true  progress.  However  distant  may  be  the 
goal,  and  however  often  intervening  obstacles  may  necessitate 
deviation  in  our  course  towards  it,  it  is  obviously  requisite  to  know 
whereabouts  it  lies. 

.Again,  while  something  like  the  present  degree  of  subjection 
of  the  individual  to  the  State,  and  something  like  the  current 
political  theory  adapted  to  it,  may  remain  needful  in  presence  of 
existing  international  relations ;  it  is  by  no  means  needful  that  this 
subjection  should  be  made  greater  and  the  adapted  theory 
strengthened.  In  our  days  of  active  philanthropy,  hosts  of  people 
eager  to  achieve  benefits  for  their  less  fortunate  fellows  by  the 
shortest  methods,  are  busily  occupied  in  developing  administrative 
arrangements  of  a  kind  proper  to  a  lower  type  of  society — are 
bringing  about  retrogression  while  aiming*  at  progression.  The 
normal  difficulties  in  the  way  of  advance  are  sufficiently  great,  and 
it  is  lamentable  that  they  should  be  made  greater.  Hence,  something 
veil  worth  doing  may  be  done,  if  philanthropists  can  be  shown 


POSTSCRIPT. 


113 


that  they  are  in  many  cases  insuring  the  future  ill-being  of  men 
while  eagerly  pursuing  their  present  well-being. 

Chiefly,  however,  it  is  important  to  impress  on  all  the  great 
truth,  at  present  but  little  recognized,  that  a  society’s  internal  and 
external  policies  are  so  bound  together,  that  there  cannot  be  an 
essential  improvement  of  the  one  without  an  essential  improvement 
of  the  other.  A  higher  standard  of  international  justice  must  be 
habitually  acted  upon,  before  there  can  be  conformity  to  a  higher 
standard  of  justice  in  our  national  arrangements.  The  conviction 
that  a  dependence  of  this  kind  exists,  could  it  be  diffused  among 
civilized  peoples,  would  greatly  check  aggressive  behaviour  towards 
one  another ;  and,  by  doing  this,  would  diminish  the  coerciveness  of 
their  governmental  systems  while  appropriately  changing  their 
political  theories. 


THE  SYNTHETIC  PHILOSOPHY 


OF 

HERBERT  SPENCER. 


FIRST  PRINCIPLES. 

1  vol.  $2.00. 
CONTENTS. 

Part  I. — The  Unknowable. 


1.  Religion  and  Science. 

2.  Ultimate  Religious  Ideas. 

3.  Ultimate  Scientific  Ideas. 


4.  The  Relativity  of  all  Knowl¬ 

edge. 

5.  The  Reconciliation. 


Part  II. — Ti 

1.  Philosophy  defined. 

2.  The  Data  of  Philosophy. 

3.  Space,  Time,  Matter,  Motion, 

and  Force. 

4.  The  Indestructibility  of  Matter. 

6.  The  Continuity  of  Motion. 

6.  The  Persistence  of  Force. 

7.  The  Persistence  of  Relations 

among  Forces. 

8.  The  Transformation  and  Equiv¬ 

alence  of  Forces. 

9.  The  Direction  of  Motion. 

10.  The  Rhythm  of  Motion. 

11.  Recapitulation,  Criticism,  and 

Recommencement. 

12.  Evolution  and  Dissolution. 

24.  Summary 


Knowable. 

13.  Simple  and  Compound  Evolu¬ 

tion. 

14.  The  Law  of  Evolution. 

15.  The  Law  of  Evolution  (con¬ 

tinued). 

16.  The  Law  of  Evolution  (con¬ 

tinued). 

17.  The  Law  of  Evolution  (con¬ 

cluded). 

18.  The  Interpretation  of  Evolution. 

19.  The  Instability  of  the  Homoge¬ 

neous. 

20.  The  Multiplication  of  Effects. 

21.  Segregation. 

22.  Equilibration. 

23.  Dissolution, 
id  Conclusion. 


THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  BIOLOGY. 

2  vols.  $4.00. 

CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  I. 

Part  I. — The  Data  of  Biology. 

1.  Organic  Matter.  4.  Proximate  Definition  of  Life. 

2.  The  Action  of  Forces  on  Or-  5.  The  Correspondence  between 

ganic  Matter.  Life  and  its  Circumstances. 

3.  The  Reactions  of  Organic  Mat-  6.  The  Degree  of  Life  varies  as  the 

ter  on  Forces.  Degree  of  Correspondence. 

7.  The  Scope  of  Biology. 


spencer’s  synthetic  philosophy. 


Part  II. — The  Inductions  of  Biology. 


1.  Growth. 

2.  Development. 

3.  Function. 

4.  Waste  and  Repair. 

5.  Adaptation. 

6.  Individuality. 


7.  Genesis. 

8.  Heredity. 

9.  Variation. 

10.  Genesis,  Heredity,  and  Varia¬ 

tion. 

11.  Classification. 

12.  Distribution. 


Part  III. — The  Evolution  of  Life. 


1.  Preliminary. 

2.  General  Aspects  of  the  Special- 

Creation  Hypothesis. 

3.  General  Aspects  of  the  Evolu¬ 

tion  Hypothesis. 

4.  The  Arguments  from  Classifica¬ 

tion. 

5.  The  Arguments  from  Embryol¬ 

ogy. 

6.  The  Arguments  from  Morphol¬ 

ogy. 


7.  The  Arguments  from  Distribu¬ 

tion. 

8.  How  is  Organic  Evolution 

caused  ? 

9.  External  Factors. 

10.  Internal  Factors. 

11.  Direct  Equilibration. 

12.  Indirect  Equilibration. 

13.  The  Cooperation  of  the  Factors. 

14.  The  Convergence  of  the  Evi¬ 

dences. 


CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  II. 

Part  IV. — Morphological  Development. 


1.  The  Problems  of  Morphology. 

2.  The  Morphological  Composition 

of  Plants. 

3.  The  Morphological  Composition 

of  Plants  (continued). 

4.  The  Morphological  Composition 

of  Animals. 

5.  The  Morphological  Composition 

of  Animals  (continued). 

6.  Morphological  Differentiation  in 

Plants. 

7.  The  General  Shapes  of  Plants. 

8.  The  Shapes  of  Branches. 


9.  The  Shapes  of  Leaves. 

10.  The  Shapes  of  Flowers. 

11.  The  Shapes  of  Vegetal  Cells. 

12.  Changes  of  Shape  otherwise 

caused. 

13.  Morphological  Differentiation  in 

Animals. 

14.  The  General  Shapes  of  Animals. 

15.  The  Shapes  of  Vertebrate  Skele¬ 

tons. 

16.  The  Shapes  of  Animal  Cells. 

17.  Summary  of  Morphological  De¬ 
velopment. 

Development. 


Part  V. — Physiological 


1.  The  Problems  of  Physiology. 

2.  Differentiations  among  the  Out¬ 

er  and  Inner  Tissues  of  Plants. 

3.  Differentiations  among  the  Out¬ 

er  Tissues  of  Plants. 

4.  Differentiations  among  the  In¬ 

ner  Tissues  of  Plants. 

5.  Physiological  Integration  in 

Plants. 

10.  Summary  of  Phys 


6.  Differentiations  between  the 

Outer  and  Inner  Tissues  of 
Animals. 

7.  Differentiations  among  the  Out¬ 

er  Tissues  of  Animals. 

8.  Differentiations  among  the  In¬ 

ner  Tissues  of  Animals. 

9.  Physiological  Integration  in  Ani¬ 

mals. 

^logical  Development. 


3 


spencer’s  synthetic  philosophy. 

Part  VI. — Laws  of  Multiplication. 


1.  The  Factors. 

2.  A  priori  Principle. 

3.  Obverse  a  priori  Principle. 

4.  Difficulties  of  Inductive  Verifi¬ 

cation. 

5.  Antagonism  between  Growth 

and  Asexual  Genesis. 

6.  Antagonism  between  Growth 

and  Sexual  Genesis. 

7.  Antagonism  between  Develop¬ 

ment  and  Genesis,  Asexual 
and  Sexual. 


8.  Antagonism  between  Expendi¬ 

ture  and  Genesis. 

9.  Coincidence  between  High  Nu¬ 

trition  and  Genesis. 

10.  Specialties  of  these  Rela¬ 

tions. 

11.  Interpretation  and  Qualifica¬ 

tion. 

12.  Multiplication  of  the  Human 

Race. 

13.  Human  Evolution  in  the  Fu¬ 

ture. 


Appendix. 


A  Criticism  on  Professor  Owen’s  The-  On  Circulation  and  the  Formation 
ory  of  the  Vertebrate  Skeleton.  of  Wood  in  Plants. 

THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  PSYCHOLOGY. 

2  vols.  $4.00. 

CONTENTS  OF  VOL .  I. 


Part  I. — The  Data  of  Psychology. 

1.  The  Nervous  System.  4.  The  Conditions  essential  to  Ner- 

2.  The  Structure  of  the  Nervous  vous  Action. 

System.  5.  Nervous  Stimulation  and  Ner- 

3.  The  Functions  of  the  Nervous  vous  Discharge. 

System.  6.  iEstho-Physiology. 


Part  II. — The  Inductions  of  Psychology. 

1.  The  Substance  of  Mind.  6.  The  Revivability  of  Relations 

2.  The  Composition  of  Mind.  between  Feelings. 

3.  The  Relativity  of  Feelings.  7.  The  Associability  of  Feelings. 

4.  The  Relativity  of  Relations  be-  8.  The  Associability  of  Relations 

tween  Feelings.  between  Feelings. 

5.  The  Revivability  of  Feelings.  9.  Pleasures  and  Pains. 

Part  III. — General  Synthesis. 


1.  Life  'and  Mind  as  Correspon-  6. 

dence. 

2.  The  Correspondence  as  Direct.  7. 

and  Homogeneous. 

3.  The  Correspondence  as  Direct  8. 

but  Heterogeneous. 

4.  The  Correspondence  as  extend-  9. 

ing  in  Space. 

6.  The  Correspondence  as  extend-  10. 
ing  in  Time. 

11.  The  Correspondences 


The  Correspondence  as  increas¬ 
ing  in  Specialty. 

The  Correspondence  as  increas¬ 
ing  in  Generality. 

The  Correspondence  as  increas¬ 
ing  in  Complexity. 

The  Coordination  of  Correspon¬ 
dences. 

The  Integration  of  Correspon¬ 
dences. 

in  their  Totality. 


4 


spencer’s  synthetic  philosophy. 


Part  IV. — Special  Synthesis. 


1.  The  Nature  of  Intelligence. 

2.  The  Law  of  Intelligence. 

3.  The  Growth  of  Intelligence. 

4.  Reflex  Action. 


5.  Instinct. 

6.  Memory. 

7.  Reason. 

8.  The  Feelings. 
9.  The  Will. 


Part  V. — Physical  Synthesis. 


1.  A  Further  Interpretation  need¬ 

ed. 

2.  The  Genesis  of  Nerves. 

3.  The  Genesis  of  Simple  Nervous 

Systems. 

4.  The  Genesis  of  Compound  Ner¬ 

vous  Systems. 

6.  The  Genesis  of  Doubly  Com¬ 
pound  Nervous  Systems. 


6.  Functions  as  related  to  these 

Structures. 

7.  Physical  Laws  as  thus  inter¬ 

preted. 

8.  Evidence  from  Normal  Varia¬ 

tions. 

9.  Evidence  from  Abnormal  Va¬ 

riations. 

10.  Results. 


Appendix. 

On  the  Action  of  Anaesthetics  and  Narcotics. 

CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  II. 

Part  VI. — Special  Analysis. 


1.  Limitation  of  the  Subject. 

2.  Compound  Quantitative  Reason¬ 

ing. 

3.  Compound  Quantitative  Reason¬ 

ing  (continued). 

4.  Imperfect  and  Simple  Quantita¬ 

tive  Reasoning. 

5.  Quantitative  Reasoning  in  gen¬ 

eral. 

6.  Perfect  Qualitative  Reasoning. 

7  Imperfect  Qualitative  Reason¬ 
ing. 

8.  Reasoning  in  general. 

9  Classification,  Naming,  and  Rec¬ 
ognition. 

10  The  Perception  of  Special  Ob¬ 
jects. 

11.  The  Perception  of  Body  as  pre¬ 

senting  Dynamical,  Statico- 
Dynamical,  and  Statical  Attri¬ 
butes. 

12.  The  Perception  of  Body  as  pre¬ 

senting  Statico-Dynamical  and 
Statical  Attributes. 


13.  The  Perception  of  Body  as 

presenting  Statical  Attri¬ 
butes. 

14.  The  Perception  of  Space. 

15.  The  Perception  of  Time. 

16.  The  Perception  of  Motion. 

17.  The  Perception  of  Resist¬ 

ance. 

18.  Perception  in  general. 

19.  The  Relations  of  Similarity  and 

Dissimilarity. 

20.  The  Relations  of  Cointension 

and  Non-Cointension. 

21.  The  Relations  of  Coextension 

and  Non-Coextension. 

22.  The  Relations  of  Coexistence 

and  Non-Coexistence. 

23.  The  Relations  of  Connature  and 

Non-Connature. 

24.  The  Relations  of  Likeness  and 

Unlikeness. 

25.  The  Relation  of  Sequence. 

26.  Consciousness  in  general. 

27.  Results. 


5 


spencer’s  synthetic  philosophy. 


Part  VII. — General  Analysis. 


1.  The  Final  Question. 

2.  The  Assumption  of  Metaphysi¬ 

cians. 

3.  The  Words  of  Metaphysicians. 

4.  The  Reasonings  of  Metaphysi¬ 

cians.  [ism. 

5.  Negative  Justification  of  Real- 

6.  The  Argument  from  Priority. 

7.  The  Argument  from  Simplicity. 

8.  The  Argument  from  Distinct- 

9.  A  Criterion  wanted.  [ness. 

10.  Propositions  qualitatively  dis¬ 
tinguished. 

Part  VIII.- 

1.  Special  Psychology. 

2.  Classification. 

3.  Development  of  Conceptions. 

4.  Language  of  the  Emotions. 

9.  JEsthetl 


11.  The  Universal  Postulate. 

12.  The  Test  of  Relative  Validity. 

13.  Its  Corollaries. 

14.  Positive  Justification  of  Real¬ 

ism. 

15.  The  Dynamics  of  Consciousness. 

16.  Partial  Differentiation  of  Sub¬ 

ject  and  Object. 

17.  Completed  Differentiation  of 

Subject  and  Object. 

18.  Developed  Conception  of  the 

Object. 

19.  Transfigured  Realism. 
Corollaries. 

5.  Sociality  and  Sympathy. 

6.  Egoistic  Sentiments. 

7.  Ego-Altruistic  Sentiments. 

8.  Altruistic  Sentiments. 
Sentiments. 


THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  SOCIOLOGY. 

Vol.  I.  $2.00. 

CONTENTS. 

\ 

Part  I. — The  Data  of  Sociology. 


1.  Super-Organic  Evolution. 

2.  The  Factors  of  Social  Phenom¬ 

ena. 

3.  Original  External  Factors. 

4.  Original  Internal  Factors. 

5.  The  Primitive  Man — Physical. 

6.  The  Primitive  Man — Emotional. 

7.  The  Primitive  Man — Intellect¬ 

ual. 

8.  Primitive  Ideas. 

9.  The  Ideas  of  the  Animate  and 

the  Inanimate. 

10.  The  Ideas  of  Sleep  and  Dreams. 

11.  The  Ideas  of  Swoon,  Apoplexy, 

Catalepsy,  Ecstasy,  and  other 
Forms  of  Insensibility. 

12.  The  Ideas  of  Death  and  Resur¬ 

rection. 

13.  The  Ideas  of  Souls,  Ghosts, 

Spirits,  Demons. 

14.  The  Ideas  of  Another  Life. 


15.  The  Ideas  of  Another  World. 

16.  The  Ideas  of  Supernatural 

Agents. 

17.  Supernatural  Agents  as  causing 

Epilepsy  and  Convulsive  Ac¬ 
tions,  Delirium  and  Insanity. 
Disease  and  Death. 

18.  Inspiration,  Divination,  Exor¬ 

cism,  and  Sorcery. 

19.  Sacred  Places,  Temples,  and 

Altars ;  Sacrifice,  Fasting,  and 
Propitiation ;  Praise,  Prayer. 

20.  Ancestor- Worship  in  general. 

21.  Idol- Worship  and  Fetich- Wor¬ 

ship. 

22.  Animal- Worship. 

23.  Plant- Worship. 

24.  Nature- Worship. 

25.  Deities. 

26.  The  Primitive  Theory  of  Things. 

27.  The  Scope  of  Sociology. 


6 


spencer’s  synthetic  philosophy. 

Part  II. — The  Inductions  of  Sociology. 


1.  What  is  a  Society  ? 

2.  A  Society  is  an  Organism. 

3.  Social  Growth. 

4.  Social  Structures. 

5.  Social  Functions. 

6.  Systems  of  Organs. 


7.  The  Sustaining  System. 

8.  The  Distributing  System. 

9.  The  Regulating  System. 

10.  Social  Types  and  Constitutions. 

11.  Social  Metamorphoses. 

12.  Qualifications  and  Summary. 


Part  III. — The  Domestic  Relations. 


1.  The  Maintenance  of  Species. 

2.  The  Diverse  Interests  of  the 

Species,  of  the  Parents,  and 
of  the  Offspring. 

3.  Primitive  Relations  of  the  Sexes. 

4.  Exogamy  and  Endogamy. 

5.  Promiscuity. 


6.  Polyandry. 

7.  Polygyny. 

8.  Monogamy. 

9.  The  Family. 

10.  The  Status  of  Women. 

11.  The  Status  of  Children. 

12.  Domestic  Retrospect  and  Pros¬ 

pect. 


Vol.  II. 

Part  IY.— Ceremonial  Institutions.  $1.25. 
CONTENTS. 


1.  Ceremony  in  general. 

2.  Trophies. 

3.  Mutilations. 

4.  Presents. 

5.  Visits. 

6.  Obeisances. 

Vol. 


7.  Forms  of  Address. 

8.  Titles. 

9.  Badges  and  Costumes. 

10.  Further  Class-Distinctions. 

11.  Fashion. 

12.  Ceremonial  Retrospect  and 

Prospect. 

n. 


Part  V. — Political  Institutions.  $ 


CONTENTS. 


1.  Preliminary. 

2.  Political  Organization  in  gen¬ 

eral. 

3.  Political  Integration. 

4.  Political  Differentiation. 

5.  Political  Forms  and  Forces. 

6.  Political  Heads — Chiefs,  Kings, 

etc. 

7.  Compound  Political  Heads. 

8.  Consultative  Bodies. 

9.  Representative  Bodies. 


10.  Ministries. 

11.  Local  Governing  Agencies. 

12.  Military  Systems. 

13.  Judicial  and  Executive  Systems. 

14.  Laws. 

15.  Property. 

16.  Revenue. 

17.  The  Militant  Type  of  Society. 

18.  The  Industrial  Type  of  Society. 

19.  Political  Retrospect  and  Pros¬ 

pect. 


Vol.  III. 

In  preparation. 


spencer’s  synthetic  philosophy. 


7 


THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  MORALITY. 

Yol.  I. 


Part  I. — The  Data  op  Ethics.  $1.25. 
CONTENTS. 


1.  Conduct  in  general. 

2.  The  Evolution  of  Conduct. 

3.  Good  and  Bad  Conduct. 

4.  Ways  of  judging  Conduct. 

5.  The  Physical  View. 

6.  The  Biological  View. 

7.  The  Psychological  View. 

8.  The  Sociological  View. 

9.  Criticisms  and  Explanations. 


10.  The  Relativity  of  Pains  and 

Pleasures^ 

11.  Egoism  versus  Altruism. 

1 2.  Altruism  versus  Egoism. 

13.  Trial  and  Compromise. 

14.  Conciliation. 

15.  Absolute  Ethics  and  Relative 

Ethics. 

1 6.  The  Scope  of  Ethics. 


Yol.  II. 


In  preparation. 


This  philosophical  system  differs  from  all  its  predecessors  in  being 
solidly  based  on  the  sciences  of  observation  and  induction;  in  repre¬ 
senting  the  order  and  course  of  Nature ;  in  bringing  Nature  and  man, 
life,  mind,  and  society,  under  one  great  law  of  action ;  and  in  developing 
a  method  of  thought  which  may  serve  for  practical  guidance  in  dealing 
with  the  affairs  of  life. 

“The  only  complete  and  systematic  statement  of  the  doctrine  of 
evolution  with  which  I  am  acquainted  is  that  contained  in  Mr.  Herbert 
Spencer’s  ‘System  of  Philosophy,’  a  work  which  should  be  carefully 
studied  by  all  who  desire  to  know  whither  scientific  thought  is  tending.” 

— t.  n.  nuxLEY. 

✓ 

“  Mr.  Spencer  is  one  of  the  most  vigorous  as  well  as  boldest  thinkers 
that  English  speculation  has  yet  produced.”— John  Stuart  Mill. 


New  York:  D.  APPLETON  &  CO.,  1,  3,  &  5  Bond  St. 


THE  MISCELLANEOUS  WORKS 

OF 

HERBERT  SPENCER. 


EDUCATION: 

INTELLECTUAL,  MORAL,  AND  PHYSICAL. 

1  vol.  $1.25. 

CONTENTS. 

1.  What  Knowledge  is  of  most  2.  Intellectual  Education. 
Worth  ?  3.  Moral  Education. 

4.  Physical  Education. 


SOCIAL  STATICS; 

OR, 

THE  CONDITIONS  ESSENTIAL  TO  HUMAN  HAPPINESS  SPECI¬ 
FIED,  AND  THE  FIRST  OF  THEM  DEVELOPED. 

1  vol.  $2.00. 

CONTENTS. 

Introduction. 


The  Doctrine  of  Expediency.  Lemma  I. 
The  Doctrine  of  the  Moral  Sense.  Lemma  II. 


Part 

1.  Definition  of  Morality. 

2.  The  Evanescence  of  Evil. 

Part 

4.  Derivation  of  a  First  Principle. 

5.  Secondary  Derivation  of  a  First 

Principle. 

6.  First  Principle.  [ciple. 

Y.  Application  of  this  First  Prin- 

8.  The  Rights  of  Life  and  Per¬ 

sonal  Liberty. 

9.  The  Right  to  the  Use  of  the 

Earth. 


3.  The  Divine  Idea,  and  the  Con¬ 
ditions  of  its  Realization. 

II. 

10.  The  Right  of  Property. 

11.  The  Right  of  Property  in  Ideas. 

12.  The  Right  of  Property  in  Char¬ 

acter. 

13.  The  Right  of  Exchange. 

14.  The  Right  of  Free  Speech. 

15.  Further  Rights. 

16.  The  Rights  of  Women. 

1Y.  The  Rights  of  Children. 


9 


spencer’s  miscellaneous  works. 


Part  III. 


18.  Political  Rights. 

19.  The  Right  to  ignore  the  State. 

20.  The  Constitution  of  the  State. 

21.  The  Duty  of  the  State. 

22.  The  Limit  of  State-Duty. 

23.  The  Regulation  of  Commerce. 


24.  Religious  Establishment. 

25.  Poor-Laws. 

26.  National  Education. 

27.  Government  Colonization. 

28.  Sanitary  Supervision.  [etc. 

29.  Currency,  Postal  Arrangements, 


Part  IY. 


30.  General  Considerations.  31.  Summary. 

32.  Conclusion. 

THE  STUDY  OF  SOCIOLOGY. 

1  vol.  $1.50. 

CONTENTS. 


1.  Our  Need  of  it. 

2.  Is  there  a  Social  Science  ? 

3.  Nature  of  the  Social  Science. 

4.  Difficulties  of  the  Social  Science. 

5.  Objective  Difficulties. 

6.  Subjective  Difficulties  —  Intel¬ 

lectual. 

7.  Subjective  Difficulties  —  Emo¬ 

tional. 


8.  The  Educational  Bias. 

9.  The  Bias  of  Patriotism. 

10.  The  Class-Bias. 

11.  The  Political  Bias. 

12.  The  Theological  Bias. 

13.  Discipline. 

14.  Preparation  in  Biology. 

15.  Preparation  in  Psychology. 

16.  Conclusion. 


ILLUSTRATIONS  OF  UNIVERSAL  PROG¬ 
RESS. 

1  vol.  $2.00. 

CONTENTS. 


1.  Progress :  its  Law  and  Cause. 

2.  Manners  and  Fashion. 

3.  The  Genesis  of  Science. 

4.  The  Physiology  of  Laughter. 

5.  The  Origin  and  Function  of  Mu- 

6.  The  Nebular  Hypothesis.  [sic. 

7.  Bain  on  the  Emotions  and  the 

Will. 


8.  Illogical  Geology. 

9.  Development  Hypothesis. 

10.  The  Social  Organism. 

11.  Use  and  Beauty. 

12.  The  Sources  of  Architectural 

Types. 

13.  The  Use  of  Anthropomor¬ 

phism. 


ESSAYS : 

MORAL,  POLITICAL,  AND  ^ESTHETIC. 

1  vol.  $2.00. 

CONTENTS. 

1.  The  Philosophy  of  Style.  3.  The  Morals  of  Trade. 

2.  Our  Legislation.  4.  Personal  Beauty. 


10 


spencer’s  miscellaneous  works. 


5.  Representative  Government. 

6.  Prison  Ethics. 

7.  Railway  Morals  and  Railway 

Policies. 

8.  Gracefulness. 


9.  State  Tamperings  with  Money 
and  Banks. 

10.  Parliamentary  Reforms:  the 

Dangers  and  the  Safeguards. 

11.  Mill  versus  Hamilton — the  Test 

of  Truth. 


RECENT  DISCUSSIONS 

In  Science,  Philosophy,  and  Morals.  1  vol.  $2.00. 

CONTENTS. 


1.  Morals  and  Moral  Sentiments. 

2.  Origin  of  Animal-Worship. 

3.  The  Classification  of  the  Sci¬ 

ences. 

4.  Postscript:  Replying  to  Criti¬ 

cisms. 

5.  Reasons  for  dissenting  from 

the  Philosophy  of  Comte. 

13.  Mr.  Martine 


6.  Of  Laws  in  general  and  the  Or¬ 

der  of  their  Discovery. 

7.  The  Genesis  of  Science. 

8.  Specialized  Administrations. 

9.  What  is  Electricity  ? 

10.  The  Constitution  of  the  Sun. 

11.  The  Collective  Wisdom. 

12.  Political  Fetichism. 
i  on  Evolution. 


DESCRIPTIVE  SOCIOLOGY: 

A  Cyclopaedia  of  Social  Facts ;  representing  the  Constitution  of  Every 
Type  and  Grade  of  Human  Society.  Classified  and  arranged  by 
Herbert  Spencer.  Compiled  and  abstracted  by  David  Duncan,  M.  A., 
Professor  of  Logic,  etc.,  in  the  Presidency  College,  Madras ;  Richard 
Scheppig,  Ph.  D. ;  and  James  Collier.  Royal  folio.  Parts  I  to  VII, 
$4.00  each ;  No.  VIII  (Double  Number),  $7.00. 

No.  1.  English.  Compiled  and  abstracted  by  James  Collier. 

No.  2.  Ancient  Mexicans,  Central  Americans,  Chibchas,  and  An¬ 
cient  Peruvians.  Compiled  and  abstracted  by  Richard 
Scheppig,  Ph.  D. 

No.  3.  Types  of  the  Lowest  Races.  Negrito  Races.  Malayo- 
Polynesian  Races.  Compiled  and  abstracted  by  Professor 
David  Duncan,  M.  A. 

No.  4.  African  Races.  Compiled  and  abstracted  by  Professor  David 
Duncan,  M.  A. 

No.  5.  Asiatic  Races.  Compiled  and  abstracted  by  Professor  David 
Duncan,  M.  A. 

No.  6.  North  and  South  American  Races.  Compiled  and  abstracted 
by  Professor  David  Duncan,  M.  A. 

No.  7.  Hebrews  and  Phoenicians.  Compiled  and  abstracted  by  Rich¬ 
ard  Scheppig,  Ph.  D. 

No.  8.  French.  Compiled  and  abstracted  by  James  Collier. 


New  York:  D.  APPLETON  &  CO.,  1,  3,  &  5  Bond  Street. 


Herbert  Spencer’s  Synthetic  Philosophy 


(1.)  FIRST  PRINCIPLES. 

Part  I.  The  Unknowable.  \  Part  II.  The  Knowable. 

1  vol.,  12mo,  $2.00. 


(2.)  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  BIOLOGY. 


Yol.  I. 

Part  I.  The  Data  of  Biology. 

“  II.  The  Inductions  of  Biology. 
“  III.  The  Evolution  of  Life. 


Yol.  II. 

Part  IY.  Morphological  Development 
“  Y.  Physiological  Development. 
“  YI.  Laws  of  Multiplication. 


2  vols.,  12mo.  $4.00. 


(3.)  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  PSYCHOLOGY. 


Yol.  I. 

Part  I.  The  Data  of  Psychology. 

“  II.  The  Inductions  of  Psychology. 
“  III.  General  Synthesis. 

“  IV.  Special  Synthesis. 


Yol.  II. 

Part  Y.  Physical  Synthesis. 
“  YI.  Special  Analysis. 

“  YII.  General  Analysis. 
“VIII.  Corollaries. 


2  vols.,  12mo,  $4.00. 


(4.)  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  SOCIOLOGY. 

Yol.  II. 


Yol.  I.  $2.00. 

Part  I.  The  Data  of  Sociology. 

“  4 II.  The  Inductions  of  Sociology. 
“  III.  The  Domestic  Relations. 


Part  IV.  Cerem onial Institutions.. $1.2$, 
“  V.  Political  Institutions .  1.50* 


Yol.  III.  12mo.  In  preparation. 


(5.)  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  MORALITY. 

Yol.  I.  Vol.  II. 

Part  I.  The  Data  of  Ethics . $1 .25.  In  preparation. 

Cheap  edition,  paper. . .  50. 

“  II.  In  preparation. 

For  sale  by  all  booksellers  ;  or  sent  by  mail,  post-paid,  on  receipt  of  price, 


New  York :  D.  APPLETON  &  CO.,  1,  3,  &  5  Bond  Street. 


Herbert  Spencer’s  Miscellaneous  Works, 


SOCIAL  STATICS; 

Or,  the  Conditions  essential  to  Human  Happiness  Specified,  and  the  First  of  Them  De¬ 
veloped.  With  a  Notice  of  the  Author.  12mo.  Cloth,  $2.00. 

“  The  present  volume,  the  first  and  most  popularly  written  of  all  the  author’s  works, 
has  an  interest  not  only  for  the  intrinsic  value  and  importance  of  its  discussions,  but 
as  foreshadowing  the  philosophical  scheme  which  it  has  become  the  business  of  his 
life  to  unfold.  With  various  things,  perhaps,  that  he  can  not  accept,  the  reader  will 
find  the  great  subjects  of  society,  the  laws  of  social  growth  and  improvement,  the 
rights,  claims,  and  duties  of  various  classes  of  the  community,  and  the  philosophy  of 
education,  government,  and  human  progress  considered  as  problems  of  science,  and 
with  the  author’s  usual  affluence  of  illustration  and  remarkable  powers  of  reasoning. 
But  he  will  further  find  that  the  work  involves  a  fundamental  organizing  thought,  that 
of  Evolution ,  which  has  become  the  central  and  governing  idea  of  all  his  philosophical 
labors.”— American  Introductory  Notice. 

ILLUSTRATIONS  OF  UNIVERSAL  PROGRESS. 

12mo.  Cloth,  $2.00. 

“Those  who  have  read  the  work  on  Education  will  remember  the  analytic  tendency 
of  the  author’s  mind— his  clear  perception  and  admirable  exposition  of  first  principles 
—his  wide  grasp  of  facts — his  lucid  and  vigorous  style,  and  the  constant  and  controlling 
bearing  of  the  discussion  on  practical  results.  These  traits  characterize  all  Mr.  Spen¬ 
cer’s  writings,  and  mark  in  an  eminent  degree  the  present  volume.” — N.  Y.  Tribune. 

ESSAYS,  MORAL,  POLITICAL,  AND  ESTHETIC. 

12mo.  Cloth,  $2.00. 

“These  essays  form  a  new  and,  if  we  are  not  mistaken,  a  most  popular  installment 
of  the  intellectual  benefactions  of  that  earnest  writer  and  profound  philosopher,  Her¬ 
bert  Spencer.  There  is  a  remarkable  union  of  the  speculative  and  practical  in  these 
papers.  They  are  the  fruit  of  studies  alike  economical  and  psychological;  they  touch 
the  problems  of  the  passing  hour,  and  they  grasp  truths  of  universal  application ;  they 
will  be  found  as  instructive  to  the  general  reader  as  interesting  to  political  and  social 
students.”— .Schott  Transcript. 

THE  STUDY  OF  SOCIOLOGY. 

12mo.  Cloth,  $1.50. 

RECENT  DISCUSSIONS  IN  SCIENCE,  PHILOSOPHY, 

AND  MORALS. 

12mo.  Cloth,  $2.00. 

EDUCATION :  Intellectual,  Moral,  and  Physical. 

12mo.  Cloth,  $1.25;  cheap  edition,  paper,  50  cents. 

PHILOSOPHY  OF  STYLE. 

12mo.  Flexible  cloth,  50  cents. 


For  sale  by  all  booksellers;  or  sent  by  mail ,  post-paid ,  on  receipt  of  price. 


New  York :  D.  APPLETON  &  CO.,  1,  3,  &  5  Bond  Street. 


Herbert  Spencer’s  Descriptive  Sociology. 

A  CYCLOPAEDIA  OF  SOCIAL  FACTS; 

Representing  the  Constitution  of  Every  Type  and  Grade  of  Human  Soci¬ 
ety,  Past  and  Present ,  Stationary  and  Progressive  : 

Classified  and  Tabulated  for  Easy  Comparison  and  Convenient  Study 
of  the  Relations  of  Social  Phenomena. 


Eight  Numbers,  Eoyal  Folio. 


Types  of  Lowest 

Negrito  Races. 

Malay o- Polyne¬ 

Races. 

Tasmanians. 

sian  Races . 

Fuegians. 

New  Caledoni¬ 

Sandwich  Island¬ 

Andamanese. 

ans,  etc. 

ers. 

Veddabs. 

N  ew  Guinea  Peo- 

Tahitians. 

Australians. 

Fijians.  [pie. 

Tongans. 

No.  I.— Price,  $4.00. 

ENGLISH.  Compiled  and  Abstracted  by  James  Collier. 

No.  II.— Price,  $4.00. 

MEXICANS,  CENTRAL  AMERICANS,  CHIBCHAS,  and  PERUVIANS. 

Compiled  and  Abstracted  by  Richard  Scheppig,  Pb.  D. 

No.  III.— Price,  $4.00. 

LOWEST  RACES,  NEGRITO  RACES,  and  MALAYO-POLYNESIAN 
RACES.  Compiled  and  Abstracted  by  Professor  Duncan,  M.  A. 

Samoans. 

New  Zealanders. 
Dyaks. 

Javans. 
Sumatrans. 
Malagasy. 

No.  IV.— Price,  $4.00. 

AFRICAN  RACES.  Compiled  and  Abstracted  by  Professor  Duncan,  M.  A. 

Ashantis. 

Fulabs. 
Abyssinians. 

No.  V.— Price,  $4.00. 

ASIATIC  RACES.  Compiled  and  Abstracted  by  Professor  Duncan,  M.  A. 

Kalmucks. 
Ostyaks. 
Kamt6cbadales. 

No.  VI.— Price,  $4.00. 

AMERICAN  RACES.  Compiled  and  Abstracted  by  Professor  Duncan,  M.  A. 

Uaup6s. 
Abipones. 
Patagonians. 
Araucanians. 

No.  VII.— Price,  $4.00. 

HEBREWS  and  PHOENICIANS.  Compiled  and  Abstracted  by  Richakd  Schep* 
pig,  Pb.  D. 

No.  VIII.— Price,  $7.00.  (Double  Number.) 

FRENCH.  Compiled  and  Abstracted  by  J ames  Collier. 


Bushmen. 

Kaffirs. 

Coast  Negroes. 

Hottentots. 

East  Africans. 

Inland  Negroes. 

Damaras. 

Congo  People. 

Dabomans. 

Bechuanas. 

Arabs. 

Bbils. 

Nagas. 

Todas. 

Santals. 

Bodo  and  Dhimals. 

Khonds. 

Karens. 

Misbmis. 

Gonds. 

Kukis. 

Kirghiz. 

Esquimaux. 

Chippewayans. 

Creeks. 

Chinooks. 

Chippewas. 

Guiana  Tribes. 

Snakes. 

Dakotas. 

Caribs. 

Comanches. 

Mandans. 

Brazilians. 

Iroquois. 

New  York:  D.  APPLETON  &  CO.,  1,  3,  &  §  Bond  Street. 


DYNAMIC  SOCIOLOGY, 

OB 

APPLIED  SOCIAL  SCIENCE ,  AS  BASED  UPON  STATICAL 
SOCIOLOGY  AND  THE  LESS  COMPLEX  SCIENCES. 

By  LESTER  E.  WARD,  A.  M. 

Two  vols.,  12mo. . Cloth,  $5.00. 


“  In  his  two  volumes,  containing  upward  of  1,300  pages,  Mr.  Ward  takes  ns 
from  the  primordial  atom,  through  the  three  stages  of  atomic  aggregation  indi¬ 
cated  by  ‘  Coemogeny,’  *  Biogeny,’  and  4  Sociogeny,’  to  the  consideration  of  some 
of  the  most  complex  problems  presented  to  the  student  of  life,  mind,  morals, 
and  society.  Especially  interesting  are  Mr.  Ward’s  reflections  upon  the  Re¬ 
productive  Forces,  which  he  very  sensibly  and  successfully  vindicates  from  the 
opprobrium  with  which  superficial  prejudice  has  surrounded  them,  and  we  would 
particularly  recommend  to  all  those  who  take  interest  in  social  questions,  and 
who  are  capable  of  free  and  unbiased  thought,  his  remarks  upon  Marriage  Insti¬ 
tutions. 

“  We  are  glad  to  find  that  Mr.  Ward  strongly  dissents  from  the  views  ex¬ 
pressed  with  such  curious  emphasis  by  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  upon  the  subject  of 
compulsory  state  education.  A  consideration  of  the  matter,  means,  and  method 
of  education  brings  to  its  conclusion  a  work  from  which  all  readers,  whether  or 
not  they  agree  with  the  doctrines  therein  expounded,  can  not  fail  to  derive  bene¬ 
fit,  more  especially  if  they  are  capable  of  bringing  to  its  consideration  a  mind 
divested  of  prejudice,  and  only  desirous  of  the  truth.”— The  Westminster  Beview. 

“An  ambitious  but  also  an  important  work.  There  is  much  acute  psycho¬ 
logical  observation  to  be  found  at  different  stages  of  the  argument  in  both  vol¬ 
umes,  and  the  properly  sociological  views  are  marked  by  great  vigor  and  inde¬ 
pendence  of  spirit.  ’ — Mind. 

“  Mr.  Ward’s  presentation  of  the  subject  is  simple,  clear,  systematic,  and 
courageous.  For  its  preparation  he  has  explored  vast  fields  of  thought ;  and  bis 
conclusions,  however  they  may  be  questioned,  can  not  be  ignored  by  those  who 
are  interested  in  modern  philosophy.  Ward’s  ‘Dynamic  Sociology  ’  is  America’s 
greatest  contribution  to  scientific  philosophy.”— Science. 

44  Mr.  Ward  has  evidently  put  great  labor  and  thought  into  his  two  volumes, 
and  has  produced  a  work  of  interest  and  importance.  He  does  not  limit  his 
effort  to  a  contribution  to  the  science  of  sociology.  He  believes  that  he  has  con¬ 
tributed  something  to  that  science,  but  the  purpose  of  his  book  is  something  very 
distinct  and  something  more  than  that.  He  believes  that  sociology  has  already 
reached  the  point  at  which  it  can  be  and  ought  to  be  applied,  treated  as  an  art, 
and  he  urges  that  4  the  state  ’  or  government  now  has  a  new,  legitimate,  and 
peculiar  field  for  the  exercise  of  intelligence  to  promote  the  welfare  of  men.”— 
New  York  Times. 

44  This  is  an  elaborate  undertaking,  conceived  in  a  praiseworthy  spirit.  It  is 
the  latest  effort  to  open  a  pathway  for  the  world’s  true  advance — a  purpose  that 
has  inspired  the  noblest  minds  in  every  age  of  the  world.”—  The  American. 

44  Mr.  Ward  makes  a  valiant  assault  upon  the  doctrine  of  laissez-faire ,  and  in¬ 
sists  upon  the  enlargement  of  state  functions,  believing  that  there  is  more  dan¬ 
ger  that  the  world  will  not  be  governed  enough  than  that  it  will  be  governed  too 
much.  Mr.  Ward  maintains  his  position  with  cogent  logic  and  a  powerful  array 
of  pertinent  facts.”— Chicago  Inter- Ocean. 


New  York :  D.  APPLETON  &  CO.,  1,  3,  &  5  Bond  Street. 


